The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in its citation. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
At best, this seems premature to me. He’s only been in office nine months, and he has no diplomatic accomplishments (as even the New York Times acknowledges), only rhetoric. Has the Nobel Peace Prize become nothing more than a global popularity contest?
What’s worse is that I read the decision was solidified back in February, about 3 weeks into his Presidency. If there is any truth to that this is an embarrassment to previous winners.
You mean previous winners such as George Ryan and Jassir Arafat? Let’s hope he doesn’t live up to this award.
C.J.: What do you think diplomacy is? Winning the game? Diplomacy is talking and more importantly LISTENING. (Instead of bombing, invading and placing economic sanctions on governments to coerce them into doing what you want. )
Obama’s ENTIRE foreign policy has been diplomacy FIRST. (Unlike his predecessor whose policy was “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” “invade, invade and invade again”.) Might is not right… and never has been. The exercise of might over the weak is ALWAYS wrong.
Unless it is Roman Polanski and a 13 year old girl.
George Ryan didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize, but he was nominated. KCDad, if you are right and Obama’s efforts at diplomacy are successful in future years, why didn’t the Nobel committee wait to award him the prize? Are they just going to award this to him every year for the next 4 or 8 years?
Ryan has been nominated six times, including this year.
Allegedly, there were over 200 nominees for this year’s award. However, the list is kept in secret by the Nobel Committee for 50 years.
The Nobel Peace Prize – meaningless since 1994.
I believe that this award to Obama was really more a way for European Socialists to take a slap at the “hated” George W. Bush. Pay no attention to these mindless fools and their stinky “ideals”.
“And this years Nobel Peace Prize goes to Barack Obama, by virtue of his good intentions and hands-off leadership in the war in Afghanistan.”
vinron: BECAUSE diplomacy isn’t about success, winning or failing, it is about trying to communicate.. trying to avoid violence… trying to treat each other as sentient, sapient beings.
VONSTER: Yeah yeah yeah … except when Rush was nominated… right?
http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html
Exactly which of these awards do you discount? (Al Gore…of course.)
Right Ed, “ideals” are always getting in the way of REAL progress and economic growth.
… George Ryan was nominated because he halted the barbaric and proudly American practice of executing criminals… often wrongly accused and convicted, some who mentally disabled, and many of whom are the not the right color or of the right ethnic origin… or just not Anglo enough.
Do disregard everything Martin Luther King Jr said and did because he might have had some “criminal” or “unethical” behaviors in his history?
Dave: How would you fight a war you think is wrong, should not have been started and is unwinnable by any definition?
kc: Obama himself said the war in Afghanistan is “a war we need to win.” And before he was elected president, he was all for escalation (probably taking a lesson from Bush’s strategy with the troop surge in Iraq…) It doesn’t sound to me as if he thinks it’s wrong or unwinnable. He just needs to listen to his General and commit more troops and put aside the blow to his ego the General gave him by the comments he made to the media. Once the Taliban is in check, then he will have earned his “prize”
“vinron: BECAUSE diplomacy isn’t about success, winning or failing, it is about trying to communicate.. trying to avoid violence… trying to treat each other as sentient, sapient beings.”
I see. So there is no objective quantifiable criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize. It is just a popularity contest where a group of Europeans finds a wise and self-aware leader who apologizes for the prior actions of his country and tells the world that the USA is not exceptional. Got it. Thanks.
My one remaining question — why didn’t Gandhi ever win the Nobel Peace Prize? He exhibited all of those diplomatic qualities.
Dave: Whether Obama publicly pronounces a winning strategy or not… it is unwinnable MILITARILY. It has always been unwinnable… it unwinnable for the Soviets it was unwinnable for everyone who has ever tried to fight there. It can only be “won” diplomatically. Wars never bring peace, they only bring lulls until the next war.
vinron: “It is just a popularity contest ” Well. yes. Since it involves nominations and a vote, it is a popularity contest. So is the Presidential election… so is every vote on legislation. So is free market capitalism.
What you have to realize is the America IS NOT exceptional. Just because you live here doesn’t make it any more exceptional. (Do you know there is a name for that kind of thinking… Nationalism.)
The Nobel committee chose Obama for the change in attitude, the chance for peace he offers. They even said it was not for what will happen in the future or what has happened in the past, but because of the promise his openness and willingness to meet with people he disagrees with offers the world. We hopefully are not and will not be America the world bully under Obama like we were under the Bushes and Reagan. The world hates us, not for our wealth, not for our freedom but for our self righteous, better than thou attitude we have demonstrated over the years.
Read these words from the poet Lloyd Stone set to the music of Jean Sebelius’ Finlandia:
This is my song, O God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine
My country’s skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
This is my song O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=tDe&q=Finlandia+sibelius+lyrics&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=Q3DPSqKSGo_gMeb90ZUD&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CB0QqwQwAw#
Water is wet.
(Waiting for kcdad to dispute that water is wet in 3… 2… 1…)
kc: Hmmmm… so I guess we never won our independence then. Glad you said something. I had a big party planned for the 4th of July, 2010.
Peace, Love and Rock ‘n Roll bro(bama)
Yes, C.J., this is an exercise in futility, but here goes anyway
1. Capitalism is not a popularity contest.
2. America is exceptional in its achievements and its accomplishments. That doesn’t mean other nations aren’t exceptional as well. So scratch nationalism. America is not exceptional to the detriment of other nations.
3. Which segues to America as ‘bully.’ I disagree. You may not watch this because it is 15 minutes long, but this man states the case for American Exceptionalism far better than I ever could. http://tinyurl.com/kpogvb
A portion of that video essay:
“At the end of 1945, only two military powers of any consequence remained after the ruin of the World War: the United States, and the Soviet Union, and while the Soviets had large numbers of troops and tanks, they had no navy and no strategic air force to speak of. On the other hand, the United States possessed, intact, the most awe-inspiring, battle-hardened navy the world had ever seen. It possessed sky-darkening clouds of B-29 strategic bombers. And it possessed, alone, the atomic bomb and the will to use it.
Had we been like any other power in the history of the world, the United States of America would have used that monopoly on absolute military supremacy to have planted its flag anywhere it wanted and no one would have been able to do a thing about it.
But what did America do with this once-in-all-of-history military advantage? We scrapped the ships, drove steel bars through the wings of the priceless bombers, and began the largest de-militarization in the history of the world. Oh, and we sent billions of 1940’s dollars – an almost unimaginable sum – to our defeated mortal adversaries to get them back on their feet.
And in all of the years since then, despite what Michael Moore may want you to believe from the comfort of his editing room, the United States has deployed in response to aggression – not to cause it. Berlin, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Korea, Vietnam – all of it Communist – that is to say, Leftist – aggression.
There is another military issue that need to be addressed. It is the idea of American “Imperialism.” The fair working definition of “empire” is a group of countries ruled over by another country, and the entire point of an empire if for the ruling nation to pull resources and wealth from the subject nations. So, is America an Empire?
Well, over what other nation does the US exercise “supreme power in governing?” Whose national parliament can we overturn at our whim? What nations in this so-called “American Imperialism” does America have ruling governors in? There are none, and everyone knows it. We have a handful of very small territories that repeatedly vote for that status. And in those nations that voluntarily house American military bases, we find we not only do not steal the resources of the host nation, but rather pump vast amounts of money into those countries. When a country – like the Phillipines – decides it no longer wants those bases, the bases are removed. Furthermore, we pay for whatever resources we are sold. That benefits us and our trading partner. Free trade is the economic and moral antithesis of imperialism.
And just as a quick parting shot, let’s talk about a “war for oil.” Unlike the people that bandy this term around, I’ve enough about military doctrine to know what a War for Oil would like like. In a War for Oil, the US would secure the oil fields using Special Operations teams. We’d place an armored cordon around the oil fields, and then, using military convoys under overwhelming close air support, convoy the oil to Basra where it would be loaded on US tankers and escorted out of the region by American Carrier Battle Groups. And if you don’t believe that take on America’s fundamental military decency, I would refer you back to the First Gulf War, when Saddam was high-tailing it back to Iraq and the US Army sat unopposed on the precious, precious oil fields. They were ours; we won them in battle. What did this American Empire do? We put out the fires and then we went home. Again.
So what kind of empire has no sovereignty over its subject nations, deploys no governors to make it’s will felt and which puts resources into the outlying colonies, rather than pulling them in? What kind of empire is that? An Anti-Empire, that’s what kind. America’s presence is Anti-Imperial. That has never happened before in history. That is one of a kind. That’s exceptional.”
“Water is wet.
(Waiting for kcdad to dispute that water is wet in 3… 2… 1…)”
Ice.
Dave: “so I guess we never won our independence then.”
There are many, including The Libertarians that claim we are still subject to the Queen and British Rule. (Bush was honored by and knelt and kissed the Queen’s ring.)
And… what does a civil war fought 1000s of miles away from the “mother” country have to do with Afghanistan?
vinron:1) Capitalism is competing for consumers… is that not based on the popularity of the goods and services being bought?
2) OH… everyone is exceptional… sounds like public education
3) “At the end of 1945, only two military powers of any consequence” How interesting to compare the US and USSR that way.
None of what he claims “all of it Communist – that is to say, Leftist – aggression.” was Communist. The Soviet Union was not a communist confederation.
“America’s presence is Anti-Imperial.” WOW! Then why is it we only go to war to protect our economic interests? Name ONE war in the past 100 years that we fought AGAINST our economic interests… that some group of American elites didn’t get stinkin’ rich from. We had no economic interest in Rwanda… and no military intervention. We had no economic interest in Cambodia, and no military intervention.
America NOT a bully? What was French Fries = Freedom Fries all about? We use our economic clout to bully the ENTIRE world.
“There are many, including The Libertarians that claim we are still subject to the Queen and British Rule. ”
There are many who claim the holocaust never occurred…we never landed on the moon…and JFKs assassination was a conspiracy–as was 9/11. And would I be too bold to assume that you subscribe to at least one of the above theories?
“(Bush was honored by and knelt and kissed the Queen’s ring.)”
It’s called protocol. Just because Katie Couric covers her hair in a muslim country doesn’t make her subject to Arab rule.
“And… what does a civil war fought 1000s of miles away from the “mother” country have to do with Afghanistan?”
Oh, not much… Our troops are fighting 1000s of miles away from their “mother country” to secure our freedom. Wait, that’s a parallel…
Neither one of us will convert the other, so this is my last response to you. Capitalism is assigning value to a purchase, dependent on your own individual values, hopefully not just what other people like.
I didn’t say every nation is exceptional. I said being exceptional doesn’t come at the detriment of other countries.
I don’t get the rest of your argument. We sure are bullying the hell out of China with our economic clout.
kcdad is whipping ya all. LMAO. As for water is wet??? ICE BAM!!!
Vinron:
That was BEAUTIFUL!
Don’t forget that this is the same Nobel committee that had at least one member admit that Carter’s award was merely a rebuke of Bush. Obama’s “win” is equal parts a further denunciation of Bush and creation of an onus for our humble leader to continue to be a marshmallow on the world stage (i.e., how could a Nobel Peace Prize winner ever invalidate his award by becoming more aggressive with any of the world’s crazyocracies?).
While I understand the Nobel committee’s excitement that Obama’s foreign policy to date entails pandering to our enemies and alienating long-time allies, I’m less sanguine regarding its prospects for advancing our interests.
“Don’t forget that this is the same Nobel committee that had at least one member admit that Carter’s award was merely a rebuke of Bush” (The word “merely” completely changes the meaning of the statement)
SOURCE PLEASE
This is not the Rush Limbaugh Show… document your outrageous statements. And was it ONLY one or is AT LEAST ONE, which clearly IMPLIES there were 2 or more?
Why does it surprise you that much of the world, might, for the most part, hate George Bush and his legacy? Why would that be an honest representation of their interests?
The Nobel committee made it clear that they hoped the award would give momentum to Obama’s diplomatic agenda. That’s a noble Nobel in my opinion.
Tulip: I haven’t seen your “name” in a long time–glad you’re back–and I agree.
Well, I’m sure you’ve all heard the old cliche about the road to hell…
All seriousness aside, I hope our Socialist-in-Chief enjoys his 1.4 mil stimulus
Dave–and who has better intentions than conservative Republicans? 🙂
“enjoys his 1.4 mil stimulus” Ha ha! That was an economic joke, wasn’t it? Let’s see … who started us out on this “stimulus” road???? Oh yeah, George Bush and the first $750,000,000,000…. to bail out… who? Oh yeah, The investment firms that CAUSED this whole economic mess.
Real funny. A real knee slapper.
kc: Whoops…careful. You’re partisanship is showing 😉
So, and correct me if I’m wrong, are we not (under the current administration,) printing money at an alarming rate in hopes that China will buy our debt? In your educated opinion, do you feel this is wise?
kc, it’s common knowledge that you can verify with a modicum of effort. Committee members and spokesemen admitted as much. I don’t owe you sourcing for a blog comment, Professor (adjunct).
I didn’t indicate surprise about anything.
What I didn’t realize until this morning is that the deadline for nominations was February 1, at which time Obama had been in office for less than two weeks. I guess the committee really bought the Hope and Change campaign promises.
Perhaps MLB should award the World Series to the Yankees today. After all, they hold the most promise.
DAVE: “are we not (under the current administration,) printing money at an alarming rate” and have been doing so since the Fed took over the treasury’s responsibilities… What difference does it make.. it isn’t real money anyway… it is just paper IOUs.
Don’t pretend this wasn’t going on under Bush.
nontimendum: “I don’t owe you sourcing for a blog comment”
you don’t owe me… you are right. Anyone can post anything without having to support it… In fact, The Nobel Committee member to which you allude said later he was just kidding and that he and Bush were best friends and were having lunch later that day in Crawford Texas. He also HAD nominated Bush saying that his efforts and peace earned him a place n the consideration.
“What difference does it make.. it isn’t real money anyway… it is just paper IOUs.”
That’s my point exactly. How’s this administration any better than any other previous administration? We’re still going deeper into debt, and the “savior” hasn’t been able to reverse it. I thought we’d have “change” by now. The only difference I see is we’ve now got a president who embarrassingly slobbers at the feet of Arab royalty, appeases Russia by eliminating plans for a defense shield over Europe, kisses the butt of Chavez, and presents the Prime Minister of England with 25 outdated DVD titles as a gift, showing how clueless he truly is. How has he made the world any safer? By eliminating a deterrent to nuclear war like a missile shield, or by showing how weak we are by bowing to our enemies?
Rebuttal?
kc, there’s much more than that readily available. I shouldn’t be surprised that you put forth less than a modicum of effort.
Nobel Peace Prize jury defends Obama decision
Headline from The Associated Press 10/13/09
from the article:
“I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous,” he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will.
“Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year,” Jagland said. “Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?”
(Jagland is Thorbjoern Jagland, committee chairman)
Jagland singled out Obama’s efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
“All these things have contributed to — I wouldn’t say a safer world — but a world with less tension,” Jagland said…
Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Obama was without merit.
“Don’t you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?” Valle said by phone from the western coastal city of Bergen. “Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I’m not afraid of a debate on the peace prize decision. That’s fine.”
nontimendum:
“kc, there’s much more than that readily available. ”
Still waiting for YOUR source… I would like to check it out… verify your deliberate misinformation.
“Don’t forget that this is the same Nobel committee that had at least one member admit that Carter’s award was merely a rebuke of Bush” (The word “merely” completely changes the meaning of the statement)
SOURCE PLEASE
Well it was real darn difficult to find a source.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/carter-awarded-nobel-peace-prize-while-chairman-attacks-bush-policies-607982.html
October 12, 2002
Carter awarded Nobel peace prize while chairman attacks Bush policies
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Tributes flowed in from around the world to hail the former United States president Jimmy Carter, who was awarded the Nobel peace prize yesterday. The Norwegian prize committee delivered an astounding public rebuke of his successor George Bush’s policy on Iraq.
Tributes flowed in from around the world to hail the former United States president Jimmy Carter, who was awarded the Nobel peace prize yesterday. The Norwegian prize committee delivered an astounding public rebuke of his successor George Bush’s policy on Iraq.
In its citation, the committee praised the 39th President’s “untiring effort” to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and to advance democracy and human rights. It singled out Mr Carter’s “vital contribution” to the 1978 Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt, as well as his efforts in conflict resolution on several continents after he left office.
“In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power,” the committee said, Mr Carter “has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, and respect for human rights.”
Later, Gunnar Berge, the committee’s chairman, banished any doubt that those words were aimed at Mr Bush. “It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken,” Mr Berge said. “It’s a kick in the leg [the Norwegian expression for ‘slap in the face’] to all who follow the same line as the United States.”
His remarks were later disowned by other committee members, but Bill Graham, Canada’s Foreign Minister, said the award was “a very positive sign … about how we would like to see the United States behave in world affairs.”
Or Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,364755,00.html
This isn’t the first year Carter’s nomination arrived promptly. But in selecting him now, the Nobel panel made an unambiguous statement: as the 43rd U.S. President edges toward war, the committee pointedly embraced the 39th, whose post-White House career has been all about conflict resolution and prevention. The official citation made only a veiled reference to George W. Bush: “In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles” of mediation and cooperation. But in case anybody missed the point, chairman Gunnar Berge elaborated: “This must be read as criticism of the present U.S. Administration.”
It is amazing isn’t it that most of us expect those who make war and/or those who are war heroes to be honored above those who would seek peace through peaceful means–even if the results are not achieved? I count Jimmy Carter was one of the latter–and I’m not sure we measure success in the same way that God honors success. But then the real honors are not achieved in this world anyway.
“It is amazing isn’t it that most of us expect those who make war and/or those who are war heroes to be honored above those who would seek peace through peaceful means–even if the results are not achieved? ”
So, I suppose after the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, we were supposed to “peacefully and diplomatically” deal with that particular situation–hoping Al Qaeda would be reasonable and not launch future, unprovoked attacks??
“In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles” of mediation and cooperation.”
…which did so much to win the release of the hostages in Iran. How many days was it Reagan was in office before that crisis ended???
Dave, there is always more than one way to look at historial events and in this country there is always the Republican spin and the Democratic spin–I vascillate back and forth often enough that I find I take a piece of this and a piece of that to try to arrive at a view that makes sense to me. There was much of the political in the Iran hostage situation. With regard to Afghanistan and even Iraq, I stood with Bush for quite some time. My views of Afghanistan changed considerably after the Manual ROTC teacher (already retired from the military) decided to serve his country one more time. I know that he had been very pro both the Afghan and Iraq Wars–argued with those who did not share his views. I trust that you all read the extensive article in the PJS about why he returned before completing his volunteer tour. He was totally disillusioned–because of the respect I have for him I certainly trusted his account of why he changed his mind–he did a 180. He was appalled to find that our military–our young men–were risking their lives to protect private contractors who were in Afghanistan to make money for themselves. I do believe “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Carter has devoted his life to a personal attempt to understanding both sides in the stuggles of the Middle East (and aiming for the impossible to get both sides to respect the other)–I don’t think he cares whether or not we defend or decry his efforts–he isn’t doing it to please any of us.
Sharon, it’s not “republican spin” to recognize that we in the United States would not enjoy the peace we do were it not for the military and its heroes. Were we a country full of Carters, I submit that none of us would sleep so soundly as we do now.
nontimendum–I would say that depends on which war and the reason for which it was fought. I do not deny the value of the military. I don’t think there is any danger of this country becoming a country of peacemakers, so I can appreciate the Carters when they pass our way. There are people in this country who do not sleep very soundly every night–some do live in a war zone not of their own making. I was referring more specifically to the Iran hostage situation–plenty of spin to go around. The following is the “spin” that makes the most sense to me–and I’m sure that most on this blog will disagree with me–I agree; it is, indeed, grand to be an American, where freedom of thought and speech are protected.
“On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act triggered the most profound crisis of the Carter presidency and began a personal ordeal for Jimmy Carter and the American people that lasted 444 days.
President Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America’s interests and prestige. He pursued a policy of restraint that put a higher value on the lives of the hostages than on American retaliatory power or protecting his own political future.
The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter’s actions brought freedom for the hostages with America’s honor preserved.”
“Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released. ”
I laugh out loud when I hear people making fun of those whom they think consider Obama to be a savior. Reagan had the same adoration from the religious right in this country–and believed Reagan was God-sent. Why can’t we see ourselves in our criticisms of others? I’m speaking only to those who may hold this view–why do some believe God has a hand in selecting some of our presidents but not the others? How can those two points of view be reconciled with those who believe as I do that God does have his hand in all historical events.
“I laugh out loud when I hear people making fun of those whom they think consider Obama to be a savior. Reagan had the same adoration from the religious right in this country–and believed Reagan was God-sent. ”
Hmmmm…I just searched all over youtube.com, and I can’t find one video showing this: (assuming that CJ hasn’t disabled URL postings)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ettl3zfLWus
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bayNhJayn_U
singing praises to Ronald Reagan… Maybe I’m not typing in the correct keywords???
I guess you weren’t around the same people that I was around in that era.
“Later, Gunnar Berge, the committee’s chairman, banished any doubt that those words were aimed at Mr Bush. “It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken,” Mr Berge said. “It’s a kick in the leg [the Norwegian expression for ‘slap in the face’] to all who follow the same line as the United States.”
Can you show me where exactly it says: “Don’t forget that this is the same Nobel committee that had at least one member admit that Carter’s award was merely a rebuke of Bush”
He said (apparently) it should be interpreted as a criticism of the policies of the Bush Administration. Apparently you can not separate a disagreement with policy with a personal attack… how… Limbaughesque of you! (Or should I say Rush-ian?)
“as the 43rd U.S. President edges toward war, the committee pointedly embraced the 39th, whose post-White House career has been all about conflict resolution and prevention.”
As for your comments Dave; “So, I suppose after the murder of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, we were supposed to “peacefully and diplomatically” deal with that particular situation–hoping Al Qaeda would be reasonable and not launch future, unprovoked attacks??”
Since you used the word murder…I presume you mean that. Do you suggest we go to war against every criminal? Send the army, navy, air force, coast guard, national guard, and reserves after every felon?
What have they gotten us except nearly 5000 American soldiers dead, many more crippled and wounded, the scorn of the world, 100s of thousands of Iraqi (civilian and military, men women and children) killed, wounded, homeless, driven to the extremists for survival… and when will we have our “revenge” for 9/11 in Iraq??? Oh, yeah, that’s right NEVER. They had nothing to do with 9/11.
I presume you are not a Christian, since they are taught, in Jesus’ own words: Do not return evil for evil. Rattle your saber some place else…
“How many days was it Reagan was in office before that crisis ended???” PUH-LEESE anyone who cares to know , knows why they released them after Reagan’s inauguration… It came back a few years later to haunt Ollie North and Reagan ; it was called Iran Contra… REMEMBER?????? (We’ll never negotiate or deal with terrorists…. except when it involves really good PR or big profits in arms deals.)
nontimedum: “Were we a country full of Carters, I submit that none of us would sleep so soundly as we do now.”
Nice talking point… heard it on Rush, Sean and Glenn Beck today. How well are you sleeping? You got that sleep number bed they all sell? The number is 4349.
(and 30,000 as wounded as of June 2008)
“singing praises to Ronald Reagan… Maybe I’m not typing in the correct keywords???”
http://www.google.com/search?q=reagan+worship&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
There you go… have at it. BTW there wasn’t a youtube in 1988.
kcdad: Thanks for the link. I guess I wasn’t so far off–just going by personal experience, but I guess there were those who noticed nationally what I noticed locally.
Also, sort of on the subject. We are living in different times–Friedman’s “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” published in 1999 discusses Bin Laden and the very different kind of enemies we face in these modern times–he actually forewarned us of the kind of enemy we ended up “meeting” on 9/11. 9/11 wasn’t a military action by any particular government, so the United States couldn’t declare war on any particular country. The Bin Laden types and their followers will always be moving targets–they choose any haven available and move when things get too hot. Therefore, the U.S. went to Afghanistan to fight al-Quaida–then, of course we got sidetracked by Iraq. Nnow al-Quaida is in Pakistan. Now what? That’s what Obama inherited–same as the financial crisis. He may or may not be able to clean up any of these messes. And the Republicans now can turn the tables on their critics and blame Obama and the Democrats. And we probably will never solve the problems because everything is political–there is never room for compromise because the next election is always looming on the horizon. That sure seems to be the way Aaron Schock is operating these days.
KC:
“http://www.google.com/search?q…..=firefox-a
There you go… have at it. BTW there wasn’t a youtube in 1988.”
Not sure how technologically savvy you are, but they did have video cameras in 1988, and we now have digital video transfer devices that allow one to upload to youtube (I’ve done it myself a few times…) However, I digress.
I don’t recall seeing our learning institutions indoctrinating an entire generation of children to “worship” Reagan. That’s the video I was asking for, and you didn’t deliver. I’m sure if there was such a video, some liberal (not unlike yourself) would have posted it on youtube by now.
“Since you used the word murder…I presume you mean that. Do you suggest we go to war against every criminal? Send the army, navy, air force, coast guard, national guard, and reserves after every felon?”
That is such a ridiculous statement, I won’t even dignify that with a response.
“I presume you are not a Christian, since they are taught, in Jesus’ own words: Do not return evil for evil. Rattle your saber some place else…”
Again, you are incorrect. I am a Christian and have been since I was 4, which has given me enough time to study the Word which does seem to indicate that God allows for “just” wars. Israel would not be in existence today had they tried to “negotiate” their way into the land that was promised to them. There are several examples of “just” wars throughout the Old Testament where God had Israel wage war against their enemies. And before you throw the “Yes, but Jesus said turn the other cheek” at me, you might want to look into the book of Revelation (or Daniel) and read about the great white throne of judgment.
Obviously, we have two polar opposite views on how to obtain and keep peace, and we’ll probably never agree. You (and Sharon) believe that to obtain peace, you have to be this meek individual who plays mediator. Although peace negotiations should always be considered first over going to war, history has shown it’s not 100% effective. I also believe that their needs to be consequences for wrongdoing (e.g., war, Capital punishment, etc.,) to hinder future wrongdoing (e.g., more 9/11s).
Terrorists are not “rational” people that can be negotiated with. Do you have any kids? If so, have you ever spanked them for wrongdoing? Or did you try to negotiate with your fit-throwing 3-year-old, making concessions to make them stop and see your point of view? Terrorists are like 3-year-olds…they just fly things into skyscrapers and blow themselves up when they don’t get their way.
You don’t get it do you? No one worshiped Reagan. He was a terribly flawed human being, an “actor” president, if you recall… pushed and pulled along by his advisors around him and all those trees causing pollution. He was joke back then. I was there, I remember then, not what the revisionists have written since his battle with Alzheimer’s.
(here, enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals)
No one is worshiping Obama… they are celebrating the corner we have turned in this corner, that rich white Anglos can not claim ownership of everything good, powerful and holy anymore. It is about what Obama represents: A new hope for a better future for ALL Americans, not just the 1% living it up right now.
Do you not realize how difficult it was for America to elect a man with dark skin as President? Had it not been for the dismal failure of the previous administration, the incompetent leadership and the rampant militarism and self-serving economic theft that occurred the past 8 years, White America would have not been able to stand the “stench” of electing a minority. (It, by the way is the same desperation and hope that allowed our country to elect a Catholic, and earlier a man crippled by polio, and before that an ugly country lawyer from Illinois.)