Obama wins the nobel peace prize!

SunOfABeach

Gore?! for what? you must be kidding me...

He signed for the bombings in the Kosovo war during the Clinton administration. SOLELY because of this, he is completely unworthy of a nobel PEACE prize (not even a nomination).

Carter, I'm not going to discuss.

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Everything that NATO did in that war ultimately led to peace and the end of widespread murder and genocide.

Reply 82

Supporting21

Blátönn

It's because he's black. End.

Yet you don't see Robert Mugabe being handed the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reply 83

technik

13

peace prize has been a bit of a comedy since they started awarding it to terrorists and the like.

the economics prize this year is a LOL too...they gave it to a graduate student who hasn't even published anything. he's obviously changed the world too...

sounds like the committee in charge of the nobel prizes have completely lost the plot and are trying to get publicity.

Reply 84

Blátönn

It's because he's black. End.

You must not have been informed that the prime minister of Zimbabwe was a nominee. He's full black.

Reply 85

Blátönn

3

Supporting21

Yet you don't see Robert Mugabe being handed the Nobel Peace Prize.

Okay, because he's black and not particularly bad. And the President of the US. And everyone wants to suck his big black pimp-stick for some reason.

Reply 86

Krinkles

No Racism Intended but he just got the nobel prize for being Black - the first Black President...

Reply 87

SunOfABeach

11

Delta Usafa

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Everything that NATO did in that war ultimately led to peace and the end of widespread murder and genocide.

Bull? they still kill each other over there. Have you ever been to Kosovo? They have created 1000 pseudo-states and they all hate each other. And I suggest that you read UN security council's resolution on the Kosovo War. NATO was also found guilty of war crimes btw.

And I hope that one day, when Japan bombs California and your home, that you will be able to make such hateful statements about "fighting fire with fire". Especially when that fire solves NOTHING and in fact creates even more problems for everyone in that region.

Reply 88

Delta Usafa

That site looks objective....

Because you don't agree with it :rolleyes:

Notice it says they killed 14 Al Queda leaders, but doesn't mention a single thing about ordinary fighters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/world/asia/30briefs-Pakistan.html

One attack struck a Taliban compound in Sararogha village, South Waziristan, and killed six insurgents, including two Uzbek fighters, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

A second missile hit a house owned by an Afghan militant in Dandey Darpakhel village, North Waziristan, officials said. Seven insurgents died in the attack, they said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012903173.html

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Jan. 29 -- A missile strike killed 12 people in a remote area in northwestern Pakistan early Tuesday, and villagers said they saw an aerial drone shortly before the attack.... There were conflicting reports about who was killed, with some villagers saying women and children were among the dead and others saying only fighters had died.

Those two articles alone, citing Pakistani witnesses, bring discredit the article you provided.

Not really, i am well aware that the drones kill insurgents and have not denied this. But you have yet to disprove that they kill more insurgents than civilians.

It's not just the civilian deaths that come about via drone attacks, it is the propoganda oppurtunity for the Taliban. What is the point in killing insurgents with drones, if the civilian casualties cause more people to become radicaised.

Now, what diplomatic approach do you think there could have been? We asked the Taliban very nicely to turn over Bin Laden, but they refused. What does that have to do with Pakistan? What could they have possibly done about it without invading Afghanistan themselves?

Ha, very nicely? The Taliban would have never given up Al Qaeda to the US, not because they were loyal to them, but because it would have gone against their tribal law, the pashtunwali. Before the invasion the two groups were not getting along anyway, and there was alot of tension. America, as usual paying no attention to the laws and rules of a smaller country just steamrolled right up in there with guns blazing.

Pakistan was the largest supporter of the Taliban and could claim the most influence over them. They had played the biggest part in bringing them to power in the early 90's, and Pakistan had been where most of the Taliban leaders had trained at their madrassas. At the time of the invasion the largest interest group supporting the Taliban had a lot of influence in the Pakistani Government. They did not however support Al Qaeda, seeing them as a threat to their western trade routes. The same trade routes that they had supported the Taiban so as to protect. If the US had pursued a diplomatic course with Pakistan, they could have nuetered Al Qaeda, even if they hadn't driven them out. Chances are Bin Laden wouldn't have been given up, but he would have no more hospitality in the country and all of this blood wouldn't have had to be shed. Now we are faced with a unwinnable war. there is absolutely no way we can win by force of arms now, and Bin LAden still hasn't been captured.

Very little unfortunately. Mostly because the Bush administration did very little in Afghanistan, instead deciding to drain our resources in Iraq.

That is because America did not invade Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. This became obvious at Tora Bora.

Reply 89

SunOfABeach

Bull? they still kill each other over there. Have you ever been to Kosovo? They have created 1000 pseudo-states and they all hate each other. And I suggest that you read UN security council's resolution on the Kosovo War. NATO was also found guilty of war crimes.

And I hope that when one day, Japan bombs California and your home, that you will be able to make such hateful statements about "fighting fire with fire". Especially when that fire solves NOTHING and in fact creates even more problems for everyone in that region.

lol, what? What does this have to do with me? And what's hateful about fighting fire with fire? Military intervention is often the only way to solve violence.

And where do you get the idea that the Kosovo War is still going on, and that the peace did nothing but cause more problems? Seriously, I'd love a source on that one.

Reply 90

Delta Usafa

lol, what? What does this have to do with me? And what's hateful about fighting fire with fire? Military intervention is often the only way to solve violence.

Could you name all the places were American ~~military intervention~~ actually, any intervention has solved violence?

Reply 91

Qaz25

17

Yay!

The man in charge of the country with the most nuclear weapons on earth has won the peace prize... WOOP!

The peace prize is the most ridiculous award ever as half of the time it goes to someone who has either not been peaceful, or is in control of nuclear weapons.

Awarded for his efforts in international diplomacy and to get people co-operating... what a load of BS. He hasn't done anything since coming to power.

I'm surprised they never gave it to George Bush for his amazing efforts to bring peace to the world :rolleyes:

Reply 92

shs9001

LukeatForest

Barrack Obama - the best illusion of greatness created by a publicity team ever. If anyone can think of a worthwhile thing he has contributed to this world thus far, I shall be very happy to hear it. He became President because the previous incumbent and the guy he was running against were caricatures of incompetency, now he wins the Nobel Peace Prize because . . . well, because he's Barrack Obama. A man whom we have already established has done nothing. Which is a pretty damning indictment of him considering he is the most powerful individual in the world.

/thread

Reply 93

Aeolus

Because you don't agree with it :rolleyes:

Of course, because the only time a source is unbiased is if someone disagrees!

Not really, i am well aware that the drones kill insurgents and have not denied this. But you have yet to disprove that they kill more insurgents than civilians.

It's not just the civilian deaths that come about via drone attacks, it is the propoganda oppurtunity for the Taliban. What is the point in killing insurgents with drones, if the civilian casualties cause more people to become radicaised.

Hang on a tic, I didn't even realize that was counting since 2006. Well of course I can believe it now, that includes two years of Bush's bumbling.

Anyhow, my point was that there are no grounds for you to say that there were more civilians killed than bad guys period, which was your original assertion.

Ha, very nicely? The Taliban would have never given up Al Qaeda to the US, not because they were loyal to them, but because it would have gone against their tribal law, the pashtunwali. Before the invasion the two groups were not getting along anyway, and there was alot of tension. America, as usual paying no attention to the laws and rules of a smaller country just steamrolled right up in there with guns blazing.

And the rest of the world came along with us, if you recall. And could you tell me about that law and why it prevented them from turning over Bin Laden?

Pakistan was the largest supporter of the Taliban and could claim the most influence over them. They had played the biggest part in bringing them to power in the early 90's, and Pakistan had been where most of the Taliban leaders had trained at their madrassas. At the time of the invasion the largest interest group supporting the Taliban had a lot of influence in the Pakistani Government. They did not however support Al Qaeda, seeing them as a threat to their western trade routes. The same trade routes that they had supported the Taiban so as to protect. If the US had pursued a diplomatic course with Pakistan, they could have nuetered Al Qaeda, even if they hadn't driven them out. Chances are Bin Laden wouldn't have been given up, but he would have no more hospitality in the country and all of this blood wouldn't have had to be shed. Now we are faced with a unwinnable war. there is absolutely no way we can win by force of arms now, and Bin LAden still hasn't been captured.

Touché, at least about Pakistan. But why can't we win the war?

That is because America did not invade Afghanistan for Al Qaeda. This became obvious at Tora Bora.

How is that?

Krinkles

No Racism Intended but he just got the nobel prize for being Black - the first Black President...

Oh please. What makes you think the international community gives a crap about America having a black president?

Reply 94

Aeolus

Could you name all the places were American ~~military intervention~~ actually, any intervention has solved violence?

World War II. I won't get into the European theater (yes, it was a team effort and I'm not arrogant enough to say America saved everyone), but our war against Japan freed Manchuria from Japan's brutal rule over them.

Reply 95

SunOfABeach

11

Delta Usafa

lol, what? What does this have to do with me? And what's hateful about fighting fire with fire? Military intervention is often the only way to solve violence.

And where do you get the idea that the Kosovo War is still going on, and that the peace did nothing but cause more problems? Seriously, I'd love a source on that one.

It has to do with the fact that thousands of innocent civlians died and hundreds of thousands became refugees. That could be you and your family and making such statements as "fight fire with fire" and all that nazi crap, just shows that you have no sympathy for human beings (200,000 SERBS alone had to leave Serbia - become refugees because of the NATO BOMBINGS!). It has to do with the fact that the ends, do not justify the means in this case. They bombed not military bases, they bombed electricity sites, water supplies, television stations, civic buildings and many other non-military targets... And again, NATO violated international laws and UN laws in particular (they did not have the right to intervene - Russia and China wanted to intervene as well but they didn't because they obeyed the security council something that the US did not do). If any state decided to do what NATO did back then, we would end up living in a world of constant violence. States do NOT do as they please. The UN security council exists for a reason. The US do not care about all that though...

"Conflict between Serbs and ethnic Albanians threatened to erupt in late 2000 in the Presevo valley, on the Serbian side of the Kosovo border, but dialogue between Albanian guerrillas and the new democratic authorities in Belgrade allowed tensions to evaporate. There was, however, a major outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in Macedonia in 2001, again involving the Albanian minority."

Taken from the BBC News website.

Reply 96

Delta Usafa

And the rest of the world came along with us, if you recall.

That doesn't mean it was justified.

And could you tell me about that law and why it prevented them from turning over Bin Laden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali

Afghanistan is an ethnically diverse nation made up mainly of Tajik's, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Pashtun. These people are then further split into various tribes. However the customs of these tribes are generally the same.

The Pashtun (who are the ethnic majority in Afghanistan, and are where the Taliban originated) people follow a philosophy known as the Pashtunwali, which is one of the pillars of their society, it is tribal law fused with religion. Adherance to this code is something we don't really understand. The Talliban would not have given up Al Qaeda easily to the west (certainly not straight away as we arrogantly demanded) mainly because of what the Pashtunwali says about Hospitality and honour.

Touché, at least about Pakistan. But why can't we win the war?

Because we are going about it all the wrong way. We are currently training an Afghan army made up of Tajik's, Uzbek's and Hazara. Just like we have created a Government formed by the same peoples. We are alienating the Pashtun people, especially considering the Tajik's are there hated rivals, a rivalry which goes back to the chaos pre 1996. All we are doing is laying the groundwork for a civil war, while driving countless young pashtun into the arms of the Taliban. This is worsened by the fact that most of the fighting and civilian casualties happen in Pashtun territory. Coupled with Taliban propoganda, no wonder they have not been destroyed yet.

The only way i see this war ending is by splitting Afghanistan into ethnostates and letting themm rule themselves. But i can't see Pakistan allowing this. Nor America.

How is that?

I know the US forces have been accused of being incompetent, but they are a professional force, and i can't accept that the incompetence at Tora Bora was not planned. Bin Laden and the majority of Al Qaeda was allowed to flee at the battle of Tora Bora, after which the American priority became nation building, although Bush had assured the people that this reason was not why they were invading, it was to get Bin Laden. Funnily enoughb construction started the year later on a pipeline that UnoCal had been stopped from building through Afghanistan in 99 by the Taliban...

Reply 97