Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaishan)
    Strangely - I found shortly afterwards a fact check of a comedy programme by CNN?
    CNN is scared and feels like they need to protect their messiah, I guess. Comedy can be very powerful. SNL's Tina Fey turned Sara Palin into a joke and maybe they are worried they might do the same to Obama?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Sounds like it was based on good intentions and not achievements.
    Sounds like that's what mostly happens anyway. I don't think that it's ever been awarded to someone who is alone responsible for ending a war and creating peace, since the protagonists are also responsible for ending the war...it takes both sides, yes?

    Then of course, Obama is doing more to prevent war than promote it.

    And another thing Obama has definitely done is to make America more 'likeable' to the global population.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't forget that Barak Obama refused to meet the Dalai Lama, who is himself a peace Nobel prize winner.

    Peace or no peace - the Chinese are holding the US's economy by the balls.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Sounds like that's what mostly happens anyway. I don't think that it's ever been awarded to someone who is alone responsible for ending a war and creating peace, since the protagonists are also responsible for ending the war...it takes both sides, yes?

    Then of course, Obama is doing more to prevent war than promote it.

    And another thing Obama has definitely done is to make America more 'likeable' to the global population.
    So those are his actions? I don't really think he has done anything and I bet you can't give any specific examples. You are just a sheep who is easily led and manipulated by a media with a pro-Obama bias. In this country where the media sometimes does fair reporting and points out the mistakes he has made like that horrible "stimulus" that didn't create a single job and created enormous debt. He isn't really that popular in this country. He has a 50% approval rating in most polls, which is pretty unremarkable for a president in their first year of their term.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    So those are his actions?
    The Nobel Committee said he won it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

    The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.

    And you can view the interview with journalists of the Nobel Committee Head, Thorbjoern Jagland who defends his body’s choice of Barack Obama as the 2009 winner here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...as/8298690.stm

    I don't really think he has done anything and I bet you can't give any specific examples. You are just a sheep who is easily led and manipulated by a media with a pro-Obama bias. In this country where the media sometimes does fair reporting and points out the mistakes he has made like that horrible "stimulus" that didn't create a single job and created enormous debt. He isn't really that popular in this country. He has a 50% approval rating in most polls, which is pretty unremarkable for a president in their first year of their term.
    Look...our individual reactions to such news (and all other attitudes to everything that goes on in our lives) highlight the nature of our human frailities. Depending on how we feel about things that impact on our lives is how we view them and one person can see positives in that which another sees only negatives. I can level the same charge at you that you are being easily led and manipulated by anti-Obama rhetoric which raged around the US even before he was elected. The fact is that the majority of people in the US wanted him as President...and I bet you were one of the minority who didn't!

    Regardless of how US society view Obama...and I know more of my US relatives consider Obama a blessing in comparison to that which preceded him than those relatives who would agree with you...everything is relative to what we want to see and want we want to deny...and what we want to acknowledge as more valid and what we want to demean as less valid.

    Our differences are predictably human and wouldn't it be a very boring world if we all felt the same about things?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Obam-imania has really gone too far now....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    1) What are you talking about. The Taliban brutally massacred the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan in order to conquer the country. Towns such as Herat had flourishing education centers for women, womens rights, and good healthcare.
    No.

    When the Soviets withdrew in 1989 there was a massive power struggle against the regime of the President until he was eventually overthrown in 1992 and the Mujaheddin(not the Taliban) captured Kabul. The following civil war took place because Kabul had fallen to the Tajik's and Uzbeks under Rabbani and Dostum respectively, rather than the indigenous Pashtuns. The fact that their spiritual capital had been occupied for the first time in 300 years drove the Pashtun and Afghanistan to civil war immediately

    Just before the Taliban emerged at the end of 1994 Afghanistan was in a state of virtual disintegration. The country had been divided into warlord fiefdoms and all the warlords had fought, switched sides and fought again, absolutely destroying the nations infrastructure. The predominantly Tajik government of President Rabbani controlled Kabul, and the north-east of the country and three provinces in the west. In the east on the Pakistan border three Pashtun provinces were under the independent control of a council or Shura (Council) of Mujaheddin commanders based in Jalalabad. A small region to the south and east of Kabul was controlled by Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. In the north the Uzbek warlord General Dostum held sway over six provinces and in January 1994 he had abandoned his alliance with the Rabbani government and joined with Hikmetyar to attack Kabul. In central Afghanistan the Hazaras controlled the province of Bamiyan. Southern Afghanistan and Kandahar were divided up amongst dozens of petty ex-Mujaheddin warlords and bandits who plundered the population at will.
    International aid agencies were even fearful of working in Kandahar as the city itself was divided by warring groups. Their leaders sold off everything to Pakistani traders to make money, stripping down telephone wires and poles, cutting trees, selling off factories, machinery and even road rollers to scrap merchants. The warlords seized homes and farms, threw out their occupants and handed them over to their supporters. The commanders abused the population at will, kidnapping young girls and boys for their sexual pleasure, robbing merchants in the bazaars and fighting and brawling in the streets. Instead of refugees returning from Pakistan after the Soviet defeat they stayed there.

    Where you get this idea that Afghanistan had a functioning Government :lolwut: Or that the Taliban were the only group there making war i don't know. You say they massacred the other ethnic groups. First ill need a source, and secondly it wasn't a massacre it was a battle between two ethnic groups led by ethnic warlords.


    2) Independent sources, such as?? Local taliban controlled sources, probably yes.
    No Pakistani Government sources and local red cross.

    3) US was attacked in 1997 in Kenya and Tanzania.
    LOL You think the US was attacked in Tanzania by the Taliban? :mmm:

    4) But we never told him to attack Kuwait, in fact we did not want him to attack Kuwait. You cannot say that any US official wanted him to attack Kuwait - or even asked Saddam about Kuwait.
    The US armed and enabled him. They made him militarily strong and rich to fight Iran in a disastrous war for the US's own ends. Then they were surprised when he turned against them.

    5) Yes but neither side told the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians to attack Israel on Yom Kippur. That was the actions of separate states.
    Source?

    Look obviously you look at realist international relations theory then in every situation a state is influenced by the major actors in the international system. Therefore every situation is affected by the polarity of the internation system - in the case of the Yom Kippur War this was the bipolar US vs USSR situation. But just because each State is affected by the major actors does not mean that the major actors are responsible.
    Most incidents in the Middle East have come about by direct US intervention. The oppression of Palestine, The revolution in Iran, the disintegration of Afghanistan, the rise of Al Qaeda, the popularity of radicalism, the massacre of the kurds in Iraq etc, etc...

    6) OK so the US funded PLO to reorganize as an economic entity that supported the thousands of refugees under their jurisdiction. Instead the PLO spent the money on arms and on launching attacks on Israel. That was a PLO boo-boo.
    Why did the USA even get involved? The more peacefull rivals of the PLO were willing to take control until the USA enabled a PLO resurgance. That was a USA boo boo (or something altogether more sinister.

    Never said US was not involved just said the US was not the cause of everything.
    In most cases it is the cause of anything, and you have yet to prove it isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    I was pointing out how incredulous it is to say Bush's and Obama's foreign policy is identical. Bush's was defined by pushing the theory that America's supremacy meant it could do what it wanted without worry about the consequences. Obama's, meanwhile, is defined by diaglogue and diplomacy.
    Yet Obama is increasing the amount of troops in Afghanistan. The US still refuses to enter diplomatic talks with moderate elements of the Taliban. They hav also made no sign of leaving Iraq. His policy is the same as Bush's it is just delivered with more style.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Obama is Bush-lite when it comes to the War on Terror. I don't know where people get this idea that he is somehow a breath of fresh air in comparison to Bush. He has a multitude of Wall Street fat cats on his team and voted for the stimulus package too. I mean there is nothing really special about him.

    Also, the Nobel Committee's nominations were supposed to be in by February 1st. Which means that Obama had been in office no less than two weeks. He couldn't have possibly done much in that short amount of time. There is no excuse that any supporter can give that can justify the OBVIOUS political motive behind the committee's awarding the Nobel to Obama.

    Even Obama felt that he didn't earn but "will earn it". Such rubbish, he should've given the award back and had the committee give it someone more deserving.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No.

    When the Soviets withdrew in 1989 there was a massive power struggle against the regime of the President until he was eventually overthrown in 1992 and the Mujaheddin(not the Taliban) captured Kabul. The following civil war took place because Kabul had fallen to the Tajik's and Uzbeks under Rabbani and Dostum respectively, rather than the indigenous Pashtuns. The fact that their spiritual capital had been occupied for the first time in 300 years drove the Pashtun and Afghanistan to civil war immediately

    Just before the Taliban emerged at the end of 1994 Afghanistan was in a state of virtual disintegration. The country had been divided into warlord fiefdoms and all the warlords had fought, switched sides and fought again, absolutely destroying the nations infrastructure. The predominantly Tajik government of President Rabbani controlled Kabul, and the north-east of the country and three provinces in the west. In the east on the Pakistan border three Pashtun provinces were under the independent control of a council or Shura (Council) of Mujaheddin commanders based in Jalalabad. A small region to the south and east of Kabul was controlled by Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. In the north the Uzbek warlord General Dostum held sway over six provinces and in January 1994 he had abandoned his alliance with the Rabbani government and joined with Hikmetyar to attack Kabul. In central Afghanistan the Hazaras controlled the province of Bamiyan. Southern Afghanistan and Kandahar were divided up amongst dozens of petty ex-Mujaheddin warlords and bandits who plundered the population at will.
    International aid agencies were even fearful of working in Kandahar as the city itself was divided by warring groups. Their leaders sold off everything to Pakistani traders to make money, stripping down telephone wires and poles, cutting trees, selling off factories, machinery and even road rollers to scrap merchants. The warlords seized homes and farms, threw out their occupants and handed them over to their supporters. The commanders abused the population at will, kidnapping young girls and boys for their sexual pleasure, robbing merchants in the bazaars and fighting and brawling in the streets. Instead of refugees returning from Pakistan after the Soviet defeat they stayed there.

    Where you get this idea that Afghanistan had a functioning Government :lolwut: Or that the Taliban were the only group there making war i don't know. You say they massacred the other ethnic groups. First ill need a source, and secondly it wasn't a massacre it was a battle between two ethnic groups led by ethnic warlords.




    No Pakistani Government sources and local red cross.



    LOL You think the US was attacked in Tanzania by the Taliban? :mmm:



    The US armed and enabled him. They made him militarily strong and rich to fight Iran in a disastrous war for the US's own ends. Then they were surprised when he turned against them.



    Source?



    Most incidents in the Middle East have come about by direct US intervention. The oppression of Palestine, The revolution in Iran, the disintegration of Afghanistan, the rise of Al Qaeda, the popularity of radicalism, the massacre of the kurds in Iraq etc, etc...



    Why did the USA even get involved? The more peacefull rivals of the PLO were willing to take control until the USA enabled a PLO resurgance. That was a USA boo boo (or something altogether more sinister.



    In most cases it is the cause of anything, and you have yet to prove it isn't.
    Oh, so by your explanation it seems like the Taliban were great. The Taliban were only wanted by the ethnic Pashtun - there is no way you could tell me that the ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc WANTED the Taliban - such an argument is fundamentally flawed because it is wrong.

    Local Pakistan government in Swat Valley?? Are you kidding me - there is a reason why the US is using these UAV attacks and it is not because of the extensive control of Pakistan's local government.....:rolleyes:

    Oh so because of what the US did a decade before that, the US is solely to blame for the Gulf War. Why don't we just put the blame Mohammed. After all Mohammed created a new religion that was subsequently divided into multiple factions. These divisions, caused Saddam to come to power as he was able to control the Kurds and Shiites with his Sunni government. Because of his Sunni religion he was naturally worried about his Shiite neighbor, such a threatened relationship was the natural cause of the war between Iraq and Iran. This war eventually led Saddam to attack his neighbor Kuwait.
    You can see that this is ridiculous, that is why proximate explanations are much more useful. Saddam was power hungry and in search of oil. Thats it.

    Haha the Oppression of Palestine. (Assuming that the Palestinians are oppressed) That is not the US fault. Numerous factors have occurred since the creation of Israel that could have brought the Palestinians out of their terrible situation - but their violent nature, the unwillingness of their Arab and Jewish neighbors to help them, and their inability to negotiate are the main reason for their situation.

    OHH the US helped create Al Qaeda.... care explaining that one?? Basically you are saying that the actions of the US made it acceptable for a group of idiots to declare 'war' on the US people?? :eek:

    You can only impose on a people what they are willing to accept. If the Palestinian people really did not want the PLO then
    a) They would not have allowed Yassir Arafat to take control
    b) They would not have allowed the PLO to remain in power for so long. After all Fatah is still the PLO - and it is funny how this new 'centrist' PLO government is headed by a guy who has a phD in Holocaust denial...

    Don't be stupid. I never said that the USA was attacked by the TALIBAN in Tanzania. I said that Al Qaeda attacked the US, but was allowed to attack them by Taliban hospitality.

    You seem to think that if the US acts in a country once in a 40 year period, every action that country takes from then on is the fault of the USA.

    1) This is flawed logic.
    2) What is your definition of 'cause,' mine is the relationship between a first event and a second event, where the second event is a DIRECT consequence of the first. It seems like you idea of cause is wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The US armed and enabled him. They made him militarily strong and rich to fight Iran in a disastrous war for the US's own ends. Then they were surprised when he turned against them.
    Apparently not only the US thought it would be better if Iraq won the war:

    The ability for Saddam Hussein to pursue such military aggression was from a "military machine paid for in large part by the tens of billions of dollars Kuwait and the Gulf states had poured into Iraq and the weapons and technology provided by the Soviet Union, Germany, and France."[35]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...ns_with_Kuwait
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Oh, so by your explanation it seems like the Taliban were great. The Taliban were only wanted by the ethnic Pashtun - there is no way you could tell me that the ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc WANTED the Taliban - such an argument is fundamentally flawed because it is wrong.
    Prove it.

    The most credible story about the origin of the Taliban, is that in the spring of 1994 Mullah Omars Singesar neighbours came to tell him that a local warlord had abducted two teenage girls, their heads had been shaved and they had been taken to a large camp and repeatedly raped. Omar enlisted some 30 Talibs, who had studied with Omar in the madrassa in Pakistan when they were refugees. They had only 16 rifles between them and attacked the base, freeing the girls and hanging the commander from the barrel of a tank. They captured large quantities of arms and ammunition. A few months later two well known warlords confronted each other in Kandahar, in a dispute over a young boy whom both men wanted to sodomise. In the fight that followed a large amount of civilians were killed. Omar's group freed the boy, and once again hung the warlords, seizing their arms and ammunition. Before long public appeals started coming in for the Taliban to help out in other disputes, over the next few months their fame and word of their actions and idealogy would spread over most of eastern, southern and central Afghanistan, there were even requests sent by some northern provences. Omar emerged as a Robin Hood figure, helping the poor against the rapacious commanders. His prestige grew because he asked for no reward or credit from those he helped, only demanding that they follow him to set up his strict Islamic justice system, or Shariah.

    You just seem to be clutching at straws with your arguments, and it's tiring. I don't really have time to explain two decades of Afghan history to you, you can read it yourself. You have had the evil of the Taliban drilled into you by the mainstream media without knowing anything about the history of the region. The fact is that yes they were evil. But so was every other warlord fighting for power. Blindly calling them evil is not just naive, but stupid.



    Local Pakistan government in Swat Valley?? Are you kidding me - there is a reason why the US is using these UAV attacks and it is not because of the extensive control of Pakistan's local government.....:rolleyes:
    Would the Red Cross lie?

    Oh so because of what the US did a decade before that, the US is solely to blame for the Gulf War.
    A decade before? I refuse to teach you history on a debate forum. I would rather discuss topics with users who at least have basic knowledge of what they are arguing about.

    You can see that this is ridiculous, that is why proximate explanations are much more useful. Saddam was power hungry and in search of oil. Thats it.
    Do you seriously believe Saddam could have challenged Kuwait or Iran without the USA's help?

    OHH the US helped create Al Qaeda.... care explaining that one?? Basically you are saying that the actions of the US made it acceptable for a group of idiots to declare 'war' on the US people?? :eek:
    Never did i say it was acceptable. I said the actions of the US bought about Al Qaeda. Don't twist my words because you havn't got a valid argument.

    We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land [Palestine].
    Osama bin Laden
    CNN interview 1997

    Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe.
    Osama bin Laden
    On videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004

    A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.
    Osama bin Laden
    CNN interview 1997

    As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history. Not to forget the dropping of the H-bombs on cities with their entire populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Osama bin Laden
    In Nida'ul Islam magazine October-November 1996

    God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.
    Osama bin Laden
    Admitting responsibility for attacks on US on September 11, 2001, on videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004


    Does it not seem strange that the figurehead of global Islamic extremist gives only the US as the main reason for his actions. Although this does not justify his actions by a long shot. It only takes a tiny bit of research to understand his grievances.


    You can only impose on a people what they are willing to accept. If the Palestinian people really did not want the PLO then
    a) They would not have allowed Yassir Arafat to take control
    b) They would not have allowed the PLO to remain in power for so long. After all Fatah is still the PLO - and it is funny how this new 'centrist' PLO government is headed by a guy who has a phD in Holocaust denial...
    The PLO was pretty much destroyed--The US funded it's recovery--The PLO once again became the dominant party.:yy:
    How is any of your other information relevant to my argument? :curious:

    Don't be stupid. I never said that the USA was attacked by the TALIBAN in Tanzania. I said that Al Qaeda attacked the US, but was allowed to attack them by Taliban hospitality.
    Was allowed to attack them because of Taliban hospitality? How does that even work? The African attacks had almost nothing to do with the Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan bar it's approval via a few satellite phone calls which were bought forward as evidence in US court. They were for the most part orchestrated by the independant Egyptian cell.

    You seem to think that if the US acts in a country once in a 40 year period, every action that country takes from then on is the fault of the USA.
    No, i use common sense, logic and research to trace back the series of events and discover the causes. I have never said the USA was the only reason for these events. I said they were a big, if not biggest reason. You don't seem to know enough to pass judgement effectively anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    Apparently not only the US thought it would be better if Iraq won the war:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...ns_with_Kuwait

    Exactly. It's amazing how just a little propaganda has made the situation seem so black and white.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Yet Obama is increasing the amount of troops in Afghanistan. The US still refuses to enter diplomatic talks with moderate elements of the Taliban. They hav also made no sign of leaving Iraq. His policy is the same as Bush's it is just delivered with more style.
    Maybe this award will change his intentions and moderate them...he's got something to live up to now...and perhaps this award is going to do exactly what it's designed to do...aspire him to meaningful peace via increasing diplomacy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Maybe this award will change his intentions and moderate them...he's got something to live up to now...and perhaps this award is going to do exactly what it's designed to do...aspire him to meaningful peace via increasing diplomacy.

    Perhaps. But I doubt the nobel prize can put half as much pressure on him as the lobbyists and policy makers.
    Offline

    13
    Even Obama felt that he didn't earn but "will earn it". Such rubbish, he should've given the award back and had the committee give it someone more deserving.
    So rather than accept it with humility (which you yourself have acknowledged by quoting his words) he should hand it back and be accused of arrogance in the refusal?

    Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

    At least the monetary part of the reward...$1,000,000...he's donating to charity, so there will be winners there.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Perhaps. But I doubt the nobel prize can put half as much pressure on him as the lobbyists and policy makers.
    Actually, the award will put him under much greater personal pressure than anyone or anything else can because there is no way he can 'spin' his way out of it, such is the aspirational expectation that is now encumbent upon him.

    These foxy members of the Nobel Prize Committee know how the human psyche works better than most other humans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Actually, the award will put him under much greater personal pressure than anyone or anything else can because there is no way he can 'spin' his way out of it, such is the aspirational expectation that is now encumbent upon him.

    These foxy members of the Nobel Prize Committee know how the human psyche works better than most other humans.

    I seriously doubt the award will bring much pressure. It is not exactly a beacon of peace, in fact it has become a bit of a joke of late. Jimmy carter, Kofi Annan and Yasser Arafat have won it for christs sake.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I seriously doubt the award will bring much pressure. It is not exactly a beacon of peace, in fact it has become a bit of a joke of late. Jimmy carter, Kofi Annan and Yasser Arafat have won it

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Hulme and David Trimble and Nelson Mandela have all won it too.

    Time will tell, Aeolus.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Hulme and David Trimble and Nelson Mandela have all won it too.

    Time will tell, Aeolus.

    Perhaps Yawn, Perhaps...
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.