Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby H2SO4 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:46 am UTC

Spoiler:
Kain wrote:Yet again: He did not win the award for what he did before he was nominated.

Yes, I think we all agree on that. :roll: Though that is still a (if not 'the') major problem that many have with his 'winning' of the Nobel Peace Prize.


Kain wrote:He had, however, caught the attention of the Nobel commitee. Along with hundreds of other people. He won the award for his actions up to the time of the prize being awarded, and for the actions the commitee felt he would take, and for the change in political climate he represented, and for etc etc etc...

And what action has he taken, other than 'being popular', to foster peace? Because from what I've seen, he's increased the number of troops in Afghanistan, not shut down Gitmo, and increased spending on defense. Getting the award for "actions the committee felt he would take" is absolutely ridiculous. The same reasoning can be applied to Miss America and wanting to stop world hunger. The committee has no less reason to believe Miss America than they did to believe Obama. Where's her Peace prize?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby psyck0 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:11 pm UTC

Throughout his campaign he campaigned for change and for peace. He has made a very large deal about reconciling the differences between the US and the rest of the world. He does not have any concrete achievements yet but the fact that the rest of the world breathed a sigh of relief when he won says that he certainly has managed to promote peace globally.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:58 pm UTC

kittah wrote:As the leader of one of the most influential countries if the world, President Obama has stated ideals that are very similar to the ideals that are stated: "Alfred Nobel supported those who spoke up against militarism and war, and wanted to make a contribution to work for disarmament and the peaceful solution of international conflicts." (Source)

I've stated similar ideals. Do I deserve a Peace Prize? Of course not. Stated ideals are irrelevant.
Woxor wrote:Obama didn't invade Afghanistan any more than he invaded Mars.

Ha! The many Afghani villages whose Taliban warlords are now in running gun battles with US forces would likely disagree. Obama's Afghanistan strategy could easily be summed up as "invading the rest of Afghanistan."

kittah
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:06 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby kittah » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:33 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I've stated similar ideals. Do I deserve a Peace Prize? Of course not. Stated ideals are irrelevant.

As you sir can do nothing to alter these events, then no.

Philwelch wrote:Also: deployed thousands of combat troops to Afghanistan.


Please become more informed before you further post on this topic.

Spoiler:
"I believe the Nobel prize will strengthen President Obama's ability to contribute to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East," the defence minister Ehud Barak.The decision to go into Afghanistan had a unanimous UN mandate. The conflict concerns us all – this is not only the responsibility of Barack Obama.

User avatar
Habz
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:55 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Habz » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:36 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Obama's Afghanistan strategy could easily be summed up as "invading the rest of Afghanistan."


Invasion: "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer."

Going by the most common definition of the word, I don't think you can blame Obama for that. Which is something I'd guess you very well know. But since it's Obama, no hair splitting will ever be enough, right?

I admit I was slightly amused when I heard that Obama won the peace prize. But as psyck0 put it, electing him made the rest of the world sigh in relief. Our planet suddenly felt safer. That wasn't really something Obama personally did, but I can't really blame the committee for awarding him, since he is the head figure of change of the atmosphere in international politics.

What I do find highly amusing is the opposition to giving the prize to Obama, by americans themselves. Usually people tend to be proud of such an award given to their countrymen, no...?

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby H2SO4 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:29 pm UTC

kittah wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:I've stated similar ideals. Do I deserve a Peace Prize? Of course not. Stated ideals are irrelevant.

As you sir can do nothing to alter these events, then no.

So it's an award for being President.

kittah wrote:Please become more informed before you further post on this topic.

Spoiler:
"I believe the Nobel prize will strengthen President Obama's ability to contribute to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East," the defence minister Ehud Barak.The decision to go into Afghanistan had a unanimous UN mandate. The conflict concerns us all – this is not only the responsibility of Barack Obama.

You realize you're trying to stop someone from posting something *on the internet*. Good luck with that. Also, that says the decision to *go into* Afghanistan was UN approved, not the decision to increase troops and spending in Afghanistan as Obama has. The same can be said about going into Iraq. The UN passed 10 resolutions (Look at the wiki for Resolution 1441 and it will link you to the rest) that said, "Saddam, you better get rid of your weapons, or else!" When they didn't follow through, Bush said, "Ok, UN, because you aren't doing jack-squat, so I'll do it," and went in. Granted, the act of going into Iraq was approved, but not the act of Bush going into Iraq. Even then, just because the UN approved it doesn't mean it doesn't take you out of the running for Peace Prize. Though I still maintain my position that the UN is just a way for everyone else to tell the US what to do (much like the Geneva Conventions), which I don't think is good for other countries to decide what we do, but that is another topic.

I admit I was slightly amused when I heard that Obama won the peace prize. But as psyck0 put it, electing him made the rest of the world sigh in relief. Our planet suddenly felt safer. That wasn't really something Obama personally did, but I can't really blame the committee for awarding him, since he is the head figure of change of the atmosphere in international politics.

So he gets an award for being a popular President. And for not being Bush. That hardly seems Peace-Prize-worthy, considering the fact that Obama hasn't done a whole lot to reverse Bush's policies when it comes to peace/war.

What I do find highly amusing is the opposition to giving the prize to Obama, by americans themselves. Usually people tend to be proud of such an award given to their countrymen, no...?

If we felt he deserved it, then yes, we'd be proud, but he doesn't. He didn't have enough time to do anything Peace-Prize-worthy before he was nominated. He still hasn't done anything Peace-Prize-worthy. It's a lot like how the Palestinians were mixed when Yasser Arafat won the Prize. They didn't feel he deserved it.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:00 pm UTC

kittah wrote:The decision to go into Afghanistan had a unanimous UN mandate. The conflict concerns us all – this is not only the responsibility of Barack Obama.

Sure, but significantly increasing troop levels? That's the Commander In Chief.

Image

kittah
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:06 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby kittah » Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:16 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
kittah wrote:The decision to go into Afghanistan had a unanimous UN mandate. The conflict concerns us all – this is not only the responsibility of Barack Obama.

Sure, but significantly increasing troop levels? That's the Commander In Chief.

Image


I don't think you understand, Afghanistan troop levels are to complete the UN mandate.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Philwelch » Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:46 pm UTC

The invasion of Iraq was to complete a UN mandate. And since when has "completing a UN mandate by sending troops to kill people and break stuff" been equivalent to "peace"?

This is especially true when leaving Afghanistan is increasingly advocated. Even Joe Biden has expressed reservations about Obama's Afghanistan strategy, leading some to suggest he stand on principle, resign, and make his concerns public.

Afghanistan is a quagmire which has swallowed every foreign army sent into it, dating back into antiquity. It is not a strategic counterterrorist theatre, as most of the terrorists have moved into Pakistan. In short, Obama is pursuing an unwise, unnecessary war that will accomplish nothing and leave thousands of people killed by the time he is done. This is the major foreign policy endeavor of the Obama administration, and he wins the Nobel Peace Prize?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby lesliesage » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:44 pm UTC


User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Indon » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:24 pm UTC

Previous reply spoilered:
Spoiler:
Philwelch wrote:The invasion of Iraq was to complete a UN mandate.


Since when?

Remember that 'coalition of the willing' way back when? That was when we couldn't get UN support for jack in regards to invading Iraq.


Edit: Oh, didn't realize this was a necro'ed thread.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Ixtellor » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:09 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:The invasion of Iraq was to complete a UN mandate


If your talking about Gulf War I, then you are correct.

If your talking about round 2... not really. The UN mandate was like "stop doing this, er... um else we will do something".
The UN did not support the invasion in round 2, it was entirely Bush's desires and decision to do so. (Being pushed by his NSC, all of which were followers of Wolfy thesis)

Philwelch wrote:In short, Obama is pursuing an unwise, unnecessary war that will accomplish nothing and leave thousands of people killed by the time he is done.


What did you say about the Surge? I personally thought it was stupid and not accomplish anything. I was wrong.
Was your predicition about that policy correct? I am just curious about your batting average on predicting the results of foreign policy decisions.

One thing I believe is different about this policy than all past adventures, is that we are not there to conquer them, the new plan is to build them up. I have no idea if it will work, and I am inclined it believe the whole thing is pointless.

I did hear an expert say that getting a national government there is basically impossible, but if they just have one regional government with other regions that don't support Al Qaeda, it could work, and would be a victory.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Thadlerian
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Norway

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Thadlerian » Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:02 pm UTC

I don't understand all this about "doing". About how Obama hasn't "done" anything. Apart from me not comprehending people's notion of "saying" and "doing" as an absolute dichotomy, this is International Politics. You simply don't "do" stuff in IP - such is the fundamental rule of the Westphalian world order. "Doing" stuff on the international scene must necessarily to some degree imply meddling in the internal affairs of other, sovereign states. And no matter how strong a state you represent, you have no jurisdiction to do so.

There is only one thing you can "do" in IP: Go to war.

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Woxor » Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:12 pm UTC

Surprise! Obama gave an amazing speech.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9CGFID00

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Philwelch » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:02 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Philwelch wrote:The invasion of Iraq was to complete a UN mandate


If your talking about Gulf War I, then you are correct.

If your talking about round 2... not really. The UN mandate was like "stop doing this, er... um else we will do something".
The UN did not support the invasion in round 2, it was entirely Bush's desires and decision to do so. (Being pushed by his NSC, all of which were followers of Wolfy thesis)


The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.

Thadlerian wrote:I don't understand all this about "doing". About how Obama hasn't "done" anything. Apart from me not comprehending people's notion of "saying" and "doing" as an absolute dichotomy, this is International Politics. You simply don't "do" stuff in IP - such is the fundamental rule of the Westphalian world order. "Doing" stuff on the international scene must necessarily to some degree imply meddling in the internal affairs of other, sovereign states. And no matter how strong a state you represent, you have no jurisdiction to do so.

There is only one thing you can "do" in IP: Go to war.


Obama hadn't, at the time of the award, accomplished any results towards world peace. He hadn't mediated a peace settlement, withdrawn troops from any of the dozens if not hundreds of countries we have troops in, or even closed Guantanamo Bay. "Doing something" is shorthand for "accomplishing results"--and there were no results to be had.

Woxor wrote:Surprise! Obama gave an amazing speech.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9CGFID00


No surprise to me--that's been his main function for the past 11 months.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.

Of course it doesn't, because the UN never had the power to enforce a resolution by well... force. You go to war with someone when they attack you, or possibly when you have conclusive proof that you can stop them committing a huge-ass crime against humanity (though I'd contend that this remains a war of choice and that if you turn out wrong, you deserve the ass-whooping you'll be handed by the invaded country, their allies, and the international community at large.)
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby H2SO4 » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:50 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Of course it doesn't, because the UN never had the power to enforce a resolution by well... force. You go to war with someone when they attack you, or possibly when you have conclusive proof that you can stop them committing a huge-ass crime against humanity (though I'd contend that this remains a war of choice and that if you turn out wrong, you deserve the ass-whooping you'll be handed by the invaded country, their allies, and the international community at large.)

Is not violating the terms of a cease-fire a form of attack?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby nowfocus » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:16 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.


I was under the impression the authorizing the use of force was something the UN would do explicitly. I doubt Bush thought the UN resolutions implied a mandate of the use of force.

If a country ignoring numerous UN resolutions is seen as a mandate for a military invasion, then I suppose the UN has given a mandate for the invasion of Israel and Iran.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:52 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.

Of course it doesn't, because the UN never had the power to enforce a resolution by well... force.


A prime argument for the uselessness of the UN.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:15 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:Of course it doesn't, because the UN never had the power to enforce a resolution by well... force. You go to war with someone when they attack you, or possibly when you have conclusive proof that you can stop them committing a huge-ass crime against humanity (though I'd contend that this remains a war of choice and that if you turn out wrong, you deserve the ass-whooping you'll be handed by the invaded country, their allies, and the international community at large.)

Is not violating the terms of a cease-fire a form of attack?

That depends, is the party not violating the terms of their cease-fire attacking someone? Are we even talking about a war isolated to two parties? It can pretty easily happen that X and Y have a cease-fire and X attacks Z, Y's ally, without violating the terms of his cease-fire with Y -- despite the fact that this is obviously an indirect attack on Y.

nowfocus wrote:
Philwelch wrote:The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.


I was under the impression the authorizing the use of force was something the UN would do explicitly. I doubt Bush thought the UN resolutions implied a mandate of the use of force.

If a country ignoring numerous UN resolutions is seen as a mandate for a military invasion, then I suppose the UN has given a mandate for the invasion of Israel and Iran.

And note that the West is currently not invading Israel or Iran. I suppose you could say that officially speaking, some UNSC resolutions authorize force and thus constitute a statement of "Come on if you think you're hard enough" to anyone wanting to enforce them. Others don't authorize force and constitute a statement of "Come on if you think you're imperialistic enough".

And then we get into UNGA resolutions, which make another bag of chips entirely since anyone with enough other countries behind them can get one passed. These are more like statements of international opinion with neither threat of force nor force of law backing them (these are the ones Israel keeps violating en masse, which explains the lack of invasion).
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Diadem » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:16 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:
Philwelch wrote:The invasion of Iraq was to complete a UN mandate


If your talking about Gulf War I, then you are correct.

If your talking about round 2... not really. The UN mandate was like "stop doing this, er... um else we will do something".
The UN did not support the invasion in round 2, it was entirely Bush's desires and decision to do so. (Being pushed by his NSC, all of which were followers of Wolfy thesis)

Well technically you can certainly claim that Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire from the first gulf war. A new UN resolution is technically not needed to resume hostilities after the terms of a cease fire are broken.

But seeing as the resolutions were over 10 years old... Yeah... That defense is a bit weak.

aleflamedyud wrote:And then we get into UNGA resolutions, which make another bag of chips entirely since anyone with enough other countries behind them can get one passed. These are more like statements of international opinion with neither threat of force nor force of law backing them (these are the ones Israel keeps violating en masse, which explains the lack of invasion).

Exactly.

Has either Israel or Iran actually ever violated any UNSC resolutions? And then not the kind that says "Please stop doing that", but the kind that says "Stop doing that now, or else".
Last edited by Diadem on Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:18 am UTC

I think we can all agree that invading Iraq the second time has turned out (and was from the start) the biggest mistake the United States made since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Diadem » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:25 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:I think we can all agree that invading Iraq the second time has turned out (and was from the start) the biggest mistake the United States made since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Actually I disagree.

I still think the initial invasion was justified. Fuck the Westphalian world order. The problem is just that the execution was terrible. They stacked mistakes on mistakes on mistakes. But I don't think that it was a priori inevitable that they would lose the war. The Iraqi didn't want Saddam. They were happy to see him go.

And even if the second invasion of Iraq was a mistake, stopping the first one one day early certainly was a bigger one.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby nowfocus » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:41 am UTC

Lets be clear: The UNSC authorized the use of force in the gulf war in resolution 678, which "Authorizes Member States...to use any means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660".

For the second invasion of Iraq, Kofi Annan was quite clear:
Kofi Anna wrote:I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal.


As for Afghanistan, the UN created a body to aid in its invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ance_Force.

Philwelch wrote:A prime argument for the uselessness of the UN.


Just because the UN doesn't have a private standing army to enforce its will upon the world does not make it useless. Should I go into cases where the UN has proved useful?
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:00 am UTC

Diverting forces to a second war when there's no immediate threat posed by the other country while you're in (allegedly) active pursuit of the most foul man on the face of the planet is always going to be completely fucking idiotic. If it weren't for Iraq, we'd be done in Afghanistan right now.
Image

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:44 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:That depends, is the party not violating the terms of their cease-fire attacking someone? Are we even talking about a war isolated to two parties? It can pretty easily happen that X and Y have a cease-fire and X attacks Z, Y's ally, without violating the terms of his cease-fire with Y -- despite the fact that this is obviously an indirect attack on Y.

In this case, it is international group A believing X has some kind of nuclear and/or chemical weapons, which breaks the terms of the cease-fire X has with the Y, and then telling them to disarm or action will be taken, 11 times. When it becomes apparent A is not going to do anything, Y says "X has violated our cease-fire, A has acknowledged this, but A refuses to do anything. In order to keep my country safe and uphold its reputation of upholding our ends of treaties, we're going into X."

Just because the UN doesn't have a private standing army to enforce its will upon the world does not make it useless. Should I go into cases where the UN has proved useful?

I can do that for you. Here's them being useful in the Congo, Haiti, and in Darfur. And here's a link to them enforcing the Geneva Conventions. Aren't you glad they're around?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:44 am UTC

I wouldn't tout Darfur. Darfur, like Rwanda, is an instance of the UN refusing to classify genocide as "genocide" because that would actually require rich white countries to get off their asses to save the lives of poor black people in Africa.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Woxor » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:09 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
Woxor wrote:Surprise! Obama gave an amazing speech.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9CGFID00


No surprise to me--that's been his main function for the past 11 months.

That and, you know, being the head of government, getting the US through two wars and a recession, the whole "Commander-in-Chief" thing, etc. Or did you think Biden was doing all of that?

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby BlackSails » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:18 am UTC

Id say the generals are getting us through the wars, Obama isnt taking their advice, and congress, the fed and the treasury are taking care of the economy.

User avatar
nyeguy
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby nyeguy » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:23 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:I wouldn't tout Darfur. Darfur, like Rwanda, is an instance of the UN refusing to classify genocide as "genocide" because that would actually require rich white countries to get off their asses to save the lives of poor black people in Africa.

If you had follow his links, you would see he purposefully posted several instances that described the UN not doing anything productive. That was his point exactly.
Image

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

to keep up with what Obama is doing LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Postby Woxor » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:43 am UTC

nyeguy wrote:If you had follow his links, you would see he purposefully posted several instances that described the UN not doing anything productive. That was his point exactly.

I dunno, I read thereisnoarticle.com all the time.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:43 am UTC

In this case, it is international group A believing X has some kind of nuclear and/or chemical weapons, which breaks the terms of the cease-fire X has with the Y, and then telling them to disarm or action will be taken, 11 times. When it becomes apparent A is not going to do anything, Y says "X has violated our cease-fire, A has acknowledged this, but A refuses to do anything. In order to keep my country safe and uphold its reputation of upholding our ends of treaties, we're going into X."

My unification algorithm is having trouble inferring the values of those variables. Please input values.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:21 am UTC

nyeguy wrote:
Philwelch wrote:I wouldn't tout Darfur. Darfur, like Rwanda, is an instance of the UN refusing to classify genocide as "genocide" because that would actually require rich white countries to get off their asses to save the lives of poor black people in Africa.

If you had follow his links, you would see he purposefully posted several instances that described the UN not doing anything productive. That was his point exactly.

I'm glad someone catches my twisted sense of humor.

I dunno, I read thereisnoarticle.com all the time.

I get it for the articles.

My unification algorithm is having trouble inferring the values of those variables. Please input values.

I think international organization A is NATO... um... X is Sri Lanka.... and Y is Fiji. Just a guess.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:14 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.


It does invalidate your false premise that the invasion had UN support.
US and Britian submitted an enforcement resolution, and it was squashed.

And it was only a coalition in the broadest sense. It was the US and Great Britian acting near unilaterally.
To say nothing of the coersion tactics some of the countries were pressured into, most other countries sent negligable troop levels and most were almost exclusively relegated to logistical work.

Assuming you actually have some principles regarding UN resolutions (I suspect you dont)
How do you feel about the fact Israel has violated FAR more resolutions than Iraq?
What about Turkey, they are serial violators of UN resolutions? Morocco? Indonesia? Croatia?

The US would be in violation of hundreds of UN resolutions, but we have that handy Veto power on the Security Council so they never pass.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:33 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:Assuming you actually have some principles regarding UN resolutions (I suspect you dont)
How do you feel about the fact Israel has violated FAR more resolutions than Iraq?
What about Turkey, they are serial violators of UN resolutions? Morocco? Indonesia? Croatia?

None of those countries hold a cease-fire with the US that they are breaking. I don't know about Philwelch, but I personally support the war not because it broke UN resolutions (really, that's just the reason against people who are convinced that the WMDs were a lie made up by Bush) but because it broke the cease-fire. You break treaties with the US, you *will* face consequences.

The US would be in violation of hundreds of UN resolutions, but we have that handy Veto power on the Security Council so they never pass.

We have veto power because as much as an international organization can do a lot of good, giving small countries or countries that may have some kind of vendetta against the US (and let's face it, there are plenty) power to decide what the big country does is not good. They'll use that power to bring it down, even if what the country is doing is right, or make it use more resources than it can.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Um... Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize?

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:40 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
Philwelch wrote:The UN issued 11 or so resolutions against Iraq that Saddam thoroughly ignored.The fact that they refused to issue a 12th resolution to enforce the previous 11 does not invalidate the decision of the coalition to take enforcement into their own hands.


It does invalidate your false premise that the invasion had UN support.


That's not what I said, I'm saying the purpose of the invasion was to complete a UN mandate.

And it was only a coalition in the broadest sense. It was the US and Great Britian acting near unilaterally.


You forgot Poland.

Assuming you actually have some principles regarding UN resolutions (I suspect you dont)
How do you feel about the fact Israel has violated FAR more resolutions than Iraq?


UNSC resolutions, or UNGA resolutions? There aren't any comparable Security Council resolutions because the US vetoes them.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: speising, Suinos and 9 guests