There are some very difficult questions concerning Syria, and good and honest people can have different opinions. There are also fools who will blather and blather just to display their idiocy.
I felt the committee might have been premature on awarding the prize to Obama, but given his entire history, certainly don’t have a problem with Jimmie Carter receiving it. Even seeing Bush senior working with Clinton and folks to good causes, like he did with the ADA here at home, deserves some respect, despite his errors with Saddam.
The world is complex, something “right wing conservatives” locked into a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove world of total “black and white” – read “I’m right, you’re wrong”, dogma, isn’t just sad, but the ultimate display of ignorance.
<Friend David has put up elsewhere the actual transcript of some time ago the “red line” statement in context and it was a viable statement, leaving room for diplomacy. The drum beat for war, and intervention, is beaten by both “political” sides here, but the logic of analyzing “consequences” is missing.
The tragedy here could be politicizing taking action against WMD when the proof of existence lies in rows of dead civilian bodies. The popular conservative meme seems to be to make this Obama’s war. Those who want to see Obama fail seem to be completely devoid of scruples, foresight, and decency.
‘The ‘Nobel Prize’ became worthless when they gave it to Jimmy Carter.’-That’s right! The only thing Carter did was to engineer a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, which ended armed conflicts between them. -The treaty is still in effect. I can see how you’d think it was worthless.-Obviously, they should have given another one to Kissinger, who implemented Nixon’s secret plan to end the Viet Nam war.
I’m beginning to see how easy it was for Hitler to re-occupy the Rhineland. The League of Nations got nothing accomplished due to a lack of will and I’m seeing that all over the world now.
Let’s see if this is right. Peace is bombing a country in order to make everyone get along? Back your memory up to when o said that it would set the peace process back. Maybe you and o need to get together on a set definition before you get all uppity.
The concept of limited and precision military action as a deterrent seems to be too difficult for many to comprehend. This is not about occupying a country, its not about regime change, its not about taking over its resources. This is not a neo-con, chicken hawk misadventure of conquest. Seems that Obama and spokesmen such as John Kerry (who are by nature anti-war) are about the only ones who have it right.
They should have just called it the anti-GeorgeW.-prize. The fact that he got it left me wondering how come I wasn’t in the running. I didn’t do anything either.
lonecat over 10 years ago
There are some very difficult questions concerning Syria, and good and honest people can have different opinions. There are also fools who will blather and blather just to display their idiocy.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
I felt the committee might have been premature on awarding the prize to Obama, but given his entire history, certainly don’t have a problem with Jimmie Carter receiving it. Even seeing Bush senior working with Clinton and folks to good causes, like he did with the ADA here at home, deserves some respect, despite his errors with Saddam.
The world is complex, something “right wing conservatives” locked into a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove world of total “black and white” – read “I’m right, you’re wrong”, dogma, isn’t just sad, but the ultimate display of ignorance.
<Friend David has put up elsewhere the actual transcript of some time ago the “red line” statement in context and it was a viable statement, leaving room for diplomacy. The drum beat for war, and intervention, is beaten by both “political” sides here, but the logic of analyzing “consequences” is missing.
Gypsy8 over 10 years ago
The tragedy here could be politicizing taking action against WMD when the proof of existence lies in rows of dead civilian bodies. The popular conservative meme seems to be to make this Obama’s war. Those who want to see Obama fail seem to be completely devoid of scruples, foresight, and decency.
NoFearPup over 10 years ago
If they would have put that medal on a smaller ribbon…most of our problems would have been solved early on…;|
braindead Premium Member over 10 years ago
‘The ‘Nobel Prize’ became worthless when they gave it to Jimmy Carter.’-That’s right! The only thing Carter did was to engineer a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, which ended armed conflicts between them. -The treaty is still in effect. I can see how you’d think it was worthless.-Obviously, they should have given another one to Kissinger, who implemented Nixon’s secret plan to end the Viet Nam war.
wiatr over 10 years ago
I’m beginning to see how easy it was for Hitler to re-occupy the Rhineland. The League of Nations got nothing accomplished due to a lack of will and I’m seeing that all over the world now.
sw10mm over 10 years ago
Let’s see if this is right. Peace is bombing a country in order to make everyone get along? Back your memory up to when o said that it would set the peace process back. Maybe you and o need to get together on a set definition before you get all uppity.
Gypsy8 over 10 years ago
The concept of limited and precision military action as a deterrent seems to be too difficult for many to comprehend. This is not about occupying a country, its not about regime change, its not about taking over its resources. This is not a neo-con, chicken hawk misadventure of conquest. Seems that Obama and spokesmen such as John Kerry (who are by nature anti-war) are about the only ones who have it right.
Brutatowski over 10 years ago
They should have just called it the anti-GeorgeW.-prize. The fact that he got it left me wondering how come I wasn’t in the running. I didn’t do anything either.