President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

[palemale]

He's DONE something, over many years, decades, in the pursuit of peace and unification.

All Obama's ever done is win elections.

And it's a peace prize. The Dalai Lama has worked for peace. Obama is continuing two wars and amping up one of them.

Ok, Nick, what has the Dalai Lama actually done in pursuit of peace and unification, besides give speeches, make pronouncements and hob knob with Hollywood celebrities? Anything concrete? Any specific accomplishments?

I'm curious what you think Obama should have done differently in Iraq. He's clearly established a time-table in Iraq to withdraw our troops. I wish it was more accelerated, and I don't like the idea that approximately 50,000 "non-combat" troops will be there for some time thereafter. Of course, I am also concerned that too quick a withdrawal could lead to a destabilized situation and a bloodbath.

Afghanistan is more difficult. There is no way to undue the 8 years of neglect and a botched occupation, so I don't pretend to know the best answer. I said in a different thread (or maybe this one, it's such a long thread), that I thought Obama should threaten to pull our forces out entirely if there was not a rerun election. It looks like there will now be a rerun election. Afghanistan has always been a failed country, and will likely be a failed country for decades to come. Therefore, I do not think we should stay there indefinitely. After the new elections, we have to make clear to the Afghans that they have a very short window to get their act together, because we won't be there for long. If they continue to have a corrupt, incompetent government, fail to bring all ethnic groups into the government and establish the trust of the populace, then we will be gone.

Colin Powell is reported to have said to Bush before the Iraq invasion something to the effect of "if we break it, we own it." Well, the United States has broken Iraq and Afghanistan. We do have a moral obligation to fix both. I don't see how it would be moral or ethical of the United States to simply pull out and have bloodbaths ensue. At a minimum, we are obligated to ensure some modicum of stability, where people won't be slaughtered, before we pull out. That seems possible in Iraq, but more doubtful in Afghanistan.

I don't see either area in such black and white terms as you, Nick. What do you think Obama should do with respect to the messes he has inherited in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[palemale]

ObamaNation keeps telling us what it's really about by labeling people and dismissing them and what they have to say rather than addressing the substance of what they say.





That's not a source, it's political commentary as I indicated.

And there you go again, mischaracterizing what I post.

He didn't have anything to say. He made some petty, snarky comments about three emails. Typical griping by a conservative Obama hater, devoid of any substance.

 

[NickCole]

Ok, Nick, what has the Dalai Lama actually done in pursuit of peace and unification, besides give speeches, make pronouncements and hob knob with Hollywood celebrities? Anything concrete? Any specific accomplishments?

I'm curious what you think Obama should have done differently in Iraq. He's clearly established a time-table in Iraq to withdraw our troops. I wish it was more accelerated, and I don't like the idea that approximately 50,000 "non-combat" troops will be there for some time thereafter. Of course, I am also concerned that too quick a withdrawal could lead to a destabilized situation and a bloodbath.

Afghanistan is more difficult. There is no way to undue the 8 years of neglect and a botched occupation, so I don't pretend to know the best answer. I said in a different thread (or maybe this one, it's such a long thread), that I thought Obama should threaten to pull our forces out entirely if there was not a rerun election. It looks like there will now be a rerun election. Afghanistan has always been a failed country, and will likely be a failed country for decades to come. Therefore, I do not think we should stay there indefinitely. After the new elections, we have to make clear to the Afghans that they have a very short window to get their act together, because we won't be there for long. If they continue to have a corrupt, incompetent government, fail to bring all ethnic groups into the government and establish the trust of the populace, then we will be gone.

Colin Powell is reported to have said to Bush before the Iraq invasion something to the effect of "if we break it, we own it." Well, the United States has broken Iraq and Afghanistan. We do have a moral obligation to fix both. I don't see how it would be moral or ethical of the United States to simply pull out and have bloodbaths ensue. At a minimum, we are obligated to ensure some modicum of stability, where people won't be slaughtered, before we pull out. That seems possible in Iraq, but more doubtful in Afghanistan.

I don't see either area in such black and white terms as you, Nick. What do you think Obama should do with respect to the messes he has inherited in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We did not break Iraq and Afghanistan and we do not have a moral obligation to fix them. They were broken before we arrived and they will be broken after we leave no matter when that happens. Is it unfortunate, what Bush & Co did in Iraq, you bet it is. But it's done and what we're confronted with is today. And it sure is interesting that Obama and so many of his supporters have changed their tune from what he said during the campaign, that he'd begin ordering troops out virtually right away. He's just such a stinkin liar, and certainly not a man who's done anything to further peace.

What do I think we should do? Unless we're going to grab Iraq's oil, we should get the hell out of there. Should have been done right after Obama was elected. Get out of Iraq and close Gitmo. No excuses. Just do it.

Afghanistan is obviously more complicated, but not, as ObamaCo and you suggest, because of Bush's 8 years. Afghanistan is complicated, period. Always has been and really it's no worse or better now than 8 years ago; and chances are pretty good that 8 years from now it won't be much worse or better. My gut feeling is we should either fully invade and bomb the shit out of it and own the place and control it or reduce our troops to maintenance level so we can keep an eye on what's going on but stop spending so much and being party to so much killing. I think Obama's response, which seems to be a little of this and a little of that as usual for him is the worst of both -- expensive in treasure and lives without the potential for offering us much in the long run. All he's doing is creating another Viet Nam.

As for the Dalai Lama, I'm through with that discussion. If you can't see the difference between him and Obama, nothing I say will enlighten you. And I really don't care if you get it or not. What you believe is not my responsibility.

 

[palemale]

As for the Dalai Lama, I'm through with that discussion. If you can't see the difference between him and Obama, nothing I say will enlighten you. And I really don't care if you get it or not. What you believe is not my responsibility.

You're through with the discussion because you can't answer the question. You know I am right, so you dismiss me without addressing the substance of what I have to say. Isn't that what you criticized me for a few posts ago?

With respect to Iraq, you would have withdrawn immediately if you were Obama, even if it would likely have lead to wholesale slaughter? And you would have been OK with us grabbing Iraq's oil. And you think this would have advanced peace in the world.

And your gut feeling is to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan? You do realize when one bombs the shit out of country, many innocent civilians get killed? Weren't you the one who has been criticizing Obama for making war and extolling the virtues of the Dalai Lama for being a peace maker?

Nick, most of us here thought you were a world class hypocrite. Thank you for posting your views on Iraq and Afghanistan and proving us right. Indeed, you are an even bigger hypocrite than I thought. You speak our of both sides of your mouth. It is clearer than ever that what animates you and your political views is completely personality driven. You were a one person, Hillary cult of personality. Once Obama beat her in the primaries, you will say anything, whether you believe it or not, to criticize him. Just pathetic.

 

[palemale]

Afghanistan is obviously more complicated, but not, as ObamaCo and you suggest, because of Bush's 8 years. Afghanistan is complicated, period. Always has been and really it's no worse or better now than 8 years ago; and chances are pretty good that 8 years from now it won't be much worse or better. My gut feeling is we should either fully invade and bomb the shit out of it and own the place and control it or reduce our troops to maintenance level so we can keep an eye on what's going on but stop spending so much and being party to so much killing.

I call it like I see it.

I'm a Democrat because I believe in liberal/progressive principles; that doesn't obligate me to protect and defend people who say they believe in the same things I believe in but use poor judgment or make bad choices, or through their actions don't stand for progressive principles.

What liberal/progressive principle are you following when you say you would bomb the shit out of a country? I'm not aware of any. Also, wouldn't bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and fully invading it make us a party to much killing?

 

[Kulindahr]

We did not break Iraq and Afghanistan and we do not have a moral obligation to fix them. They were broken before we arrived and they will be broken after we leave no matter when that happens.

Iraq wasn't broken before we went there. It may not have been in a configuration we liked, but it was in a stable one anyway, and that's not "broken".

As for Afghanistan, I don't think it's ever been not broken. They were fighting their little mountain valley wars when Alexander the Great came by, and they're still fighting them. I'd say the only reason it's considered a country at all is because the British wrote the name on a map.

 

[NickCole]

You're through with the discussion because you can't answer the question. You know I am right, so you dismiss me without addressing the substance of what I have to say. Isn't that what you criticized me for a few posts ago?

If you want a list of what the Dalai Lama has done then go to any number of sites and read about him. I'm not rewriting it for you because it'd be a waste of my time. Before Obama came around I never heard of a Democrat suggesting anything remotely like the Dalai Lama hadn't worked a day in his life or hadn't worked for peace and didn't deserve the Peace Prize. And even you probably wouldn't have said that except you felt the burning need to protect The One We've Been Waiting For. It's grotesque and very dangerous, the hold Obama has on his followers. This has happened before in history and it never turns out well.

With respect to Iraq, you would have withdrawn immediately if you were Obama, even if it would likely have lead to wholesale slaughter? And you would have been OK with us grabbing Iraq's oil. And you think this would have advanced peace in the world.

Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq and I agreed with that position during the campaign. As did Obama supporters. I have not changed my position because there's been no information that gives me reason to. There is no more reason to believe it would lead to "wholesale slaughter" today than during the campaign. You're just making that up because it conveniences Obama's inaction and failure to do as he said he'd do. And no I would not be okay with grabbing Iraq's oil. I said "UNLESS we're going to grab Iraq's oil ..." In other words unless there's a reason for being there, we should not be there. We are not making it better, we never have.

And your gut feeling is to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan?

This is what I wrote, emphasis supplied for your special needs: "My gut feeling is we should either fully invade and bomb the shit out of it and own the place and control it or reduce our troops to maintenance level so we can keep an eye on what's going on but stop spending so much and being party to so much killing."

Look up what "or" means.

My point is that if we're going to continue to invest money and people in Afghanistan, we should either own it or simply maintain a presence so we know firsthand what's going on. Obama's response, to pour in hundreds and hundreds of billions more dollars and god knows how many lives, will get us nowhere except more debt and death. Own it and control it or let it be and keep an eye on what might be harmful to us. This middle ground, which is all Obama ever does, is wasteful, unproductive, and destructive for no useful result. Obama's a disaster as President.

You do realize when one bombs the shit out of country, many innocent civilians get killed?

Yes and they're getting killed now. At least if we owned the country there'd be some point to it. It's not what I'd do as President but I'd understand the reasoning behind it.

Weren't you the one who has been criticizing Obama for making war and extolling the virtues of the Dalai Lama for being a peace maker?

Wrong again. I'm the one who said Obama hasn't earned and doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Are you seriously a lawyer and unable to understand the difference??

Nick, most of us here thought you were a world class hypocrite.

Again you're making that up. You don't know what most here think --and my private comments and messages say you're wrong.

 

[palemale]

Nick, I never said the Dalai Lama didn't deserve the prize. In fact, in at least one of my posts I thought it was a good thing he won. I was responding to all the Obama haters who were wailing about Obama's lack of accomplishment making him undeserving of the prize. I asked what the Dalai Lama accomplished that made him more deserving than Obama. No one, you included, has been able to point to a single concrete thing he accomplished that made him more deserving.

I've read the Wiki entry on the Dalai Lama. He gives speeches. You claim that's all Obama does. You can't name any concrete accomplishments of the Dalai Lama that made him more deserving. Man up and admit I'm right and then we can let this thread die.

To even suggest bombing the shit out of a country or occupying and stealing one's natural resources for our own as policy options is grotesque. Indeed, Nick, they would be war crimes. In a rare moment of honesty, you revealed your hypocrisy. I know what "or" means. The way you used it, either of the policies you set forth were acceptable policy options. I wonder if the Dalai Lama would approve of bombing the shit out of Afghanistan.

Obama never said he would withdraw troops immediately from Iraq. He said he would draw down troops according to a timetable, and leave some troops there indefinitely. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe he said 16 months. He hasn't been in office 16 months, but is on schedule to withdraw combat troops.

I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq war. Unlike you, once we went in, destroyed the country and its infrastructure, killed tens of thousands of its people, I believe we have a moral obligation to fix it as best we can before we leave. Even when our troops were there at full strength, people were being slaughtered in huge numbers.

If I'm wrong about most thinking you are a world class hypocrite, set up a poll and prove me wrong. I'll admit it and apologize to you for saying so.

Finally, blind, irrational hatred of any politician is no better than blind, irrational adoration.

 

[NickCole]

Nick, I never said the Dalai Lama didn't deserve the prize.

This is what you said:

Well, what the fuck did the Dali Lama ever accomplish? Man never worked a day in his life, runs around the world spouting bullshit, signed his country over to China, met with the head of the cult that released poison in the Tokyo subways, and is lauded by Hollywood airheads and New Age nudniks as a man of peace. And he won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what?

That's describing someone who doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

You're so fundamentally dishonest I wouldn't believe you if you said, "Hello."

 

[Apollo]

What are you guys still debating?

 

[palemale]

Pumpkin, I think it is a good thing the Nobel committee awarded the Dalai Lama a Peace Prize because it is important symbolically to highlight the struggle of the Tibetan people for basic rights and their suffering under Chinese rule. And I also think it was good that they award a prize to Aung San Suu Kyi to highlight the struggle for democracy and human rights in Myanmar.

Did you read this Nick? What does it say? Why don't you read the first sentence very slowly and look up the words you don't recognize in a dictionary.

I note you still have not addressed my question about what the Dalai Lama accomplished that made him more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama.

Apollo, we're just having a little exercise in recognizing hypocrisy. We're almost done.

 

[Apollo]

Did you read this Nick? What does it say? Why don't you read the first sentence very slowly and look up the words you don't recognize in a dictionary.

I note you still have not addressed my question about what the Dalai Lama accomplished that made him more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama.

Apollo, we're just having a little exercise in recognizing hypocrisy. We're almost done.

Ah, just wondering. Y'all have fun now!

 

[NickCole]

Did you read this Nick?

I read everything in this thread.

This is what you wrote that I referred to:

Well, what the fuck did the Dali Lama ever accomplish? Man never worked a day in his life, runs around the world spouting bullshit, signed his country over to China, met with the head of the cult that released poison in the Tokyo subways, and is lauded by Hollywood airheads and New Age nudniks as a man of peace. And he won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what?

It doesn't go away because it's inconvenient for you now.

I note you still have not addressed my question about what the Dalai Lama accomplished that made him more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama.

I've addressed it several times, directing you to read about the Dalai Lama and informing you that I'm not going to waste my time rewriting information that's all over the web. If you don't get it, you don't get it; the Dalai Lama's life work is public knowledge and if what is easily found on the web doesn't convince you then nothing I say will either.

And I repeat: in all the many years before Obama I never once heard anything remotely like that nasty diatribe from you about the Dalai Lama from any Democrat, including those who voted for Reagan. But that's no surprise. There are Obama Democrats defending broken promise after broken promise and Obama continuing Bush policies up down and sideways.

 

[NickCole]

MoDo yesterday on Obama, Dalai Lama, China, Vaclav Havel and the Nobel Peace Prize:

Havel, the 73-year-old former Czech president, who didn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize despite leading the Czechs and the Slovaks from communism to democracy, turned the tables and asked Smale a question about Obama, the latest winner of the peace prize.

Was it true that the president had refused to meet the Dalai Lama on his visit to Washington?

He was told that Obama had indeed tried to curry favor with China by declining to see the Dalai Lama until after the president’s visit to China next month.

Dissing the Dalai was part of a broader new Obama policy called “strategic reassurance” — softening criticism of China’s human rights record and financial policies to calm its fears that America is trying to contain it. (Not to mention our own fears that the Chinese will quit bankrolling our debt.)

The tyro American president got the Nobel for the mere anticipation that he would provide bold moral leadership for the world at the very moment he was caving to Chinese dictators. Awkward.

Havel reached out to touch a glass dish given to him by Obama, inscribed with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. “It is only a minor compromise,” he said. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Click in and read on. She also gets to Katrina.

 

[palemale]

I've addressed it several times, directing you to read about the Dalai Lama and informing you that I'm not going to waste my time rewriting information that's all over the web. If you don't get it, you don't get it; the Dalai Lama's life work is public knowledge and if what is easily found on the web doesn't convince you then nothing I say will either.

You've addressed it by refusing to answer it. It's a cop out for you to say Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Prize because he hasn't accomplished anything while at the same time you hold to your position that the Dalai Lama was more deserving, when you can't name a single accomplishment that made him more deserving. I don't have to prove your point, you do. Telling me to read something doesn't prove your point. You obviously can't. The fact is, the Dalai Lama received the award because he advocates peace, and has done so mostly by making speeches. Something you constantly criticize Obama about, someone who only makes nice speeches.

And I will concede that the Dalai Lama has worked at making speeches, I was wrong to suggest that he doesn't work. I was also wrong to imply everything he says is bullshit, only some of it is. He didn't sign his country over to China, his representatives did. I don't take anything else back because it's true. The truth hurts Nick, doesn't it? The Dalai Lama is an imperfect person, doesn't mean he shouldn't have gotten the Nobel Peace prize. Far more imperfect and undeserving people than he have won it.

 

[Kulindahr]

MoDo yesterday on Obama, Dalai Lama, China, Vaclav Havel and the Nobel Peace Prize:

Havel deserved the Nobel far, far more than Obama, or Mother Theresa even.
IMO, he's smarter and wiser than this and our last president put together.

And pictures like these are not irrelevant. I don't know what to say if you're not moved by them ("it doesn't work" according to your post) but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean that the way it sounded. Pictures like these should always be shown -- and the media has done a poor job of that -- because it would force us to confront the ugliness of our abstractions of violence. This is why I am against Obama suppressing the torture photos as well; showing pictures and confronting these atrocities is the best remedy against ever repeating them. I don't know if any of you have heard this story/speech from Amy Goodman, but she does a better job than I ever could, of explaining exactly why pictures delineating the atrocities of war and injustice should be shown. Here is the story:

Refusing to release the photos is a very power and purposeful way of doing something a president should never do: lie.
By not releasing those photos, Obama is a liar, because he leaves us with an edited, sanitized, and false understanding of what's going on.
And when anyone says that pictures of what we're doing to innocents abroad aren't relevant, he's participating in the same thing.

"Go back a few months to the summer of 1955 when Mamie Till, just a mum in Chicago, sent her son Emmett Till to be with family in the south - a fourteen year old African-American boy. He was sent to Money, Mississippi, and in the middle of the night he is ripped out of bed by a clan of white men, he is tortured, he is mutilated, and he ends up in the bottom of the Tallahatchie River. This is a famous story in America, the story of Emmett Till. When his body was dragged up and sent back to Chicago his mother did something very brave, like Nadia McCaffrey with her son Patrick back in a body bag from Iraq. She said she wanted his casket open. She wanted the world to see the ravages of racism, the brutality of bigotry. Thousands streamed by his casket and saw - and Jet Magazine, another black publication photographed his distended head, and they were published in the magazines of our country, and seared into the history and consciousness of America. Mamie Till, Emmetts mother, had something very important to teach the press of today: Show the pictures! Show the images! Could you imagine if, for just one week, we saw the images of war in Iraq - across the day, across the night. Above the fold, newspapers every day, photos and stories on top of newscast. For one week we saw the babies dead on the ground. We saw the soldiers, dead and dying. We saw the women with their legs blown off by cluster bombs. For just one week! Americans would say "No!". People around the world would say "No!" That war is not an answer to conflict in the 21st century."
(Here is a link to the full speech if you're interested)

I've never heard that speech, but I know the story. I first read it -- of all places! -- in the essay section of an achievement test.

Maybe someone with real money to throw around should start "The News Images Channel", which would do nothing but display images of things going on, with just enough narrative to identify them.

 

[Kulindahr]

.... when there are folks here still willing to discuss and debate Obama and the Peace Prize (and that is the topic on which I said I had registered my final comment).

With the way Obama's going, I'm beginning to think that what he deserves is the No-Bell Piss Prize: he's pissing away opportunities to actually get something done.

 

[NickCole]

With the way Obama's going, I'm beginning to think that what he deserves is the No-Bell Piss Prize: he's pissing away opportunities to actually get something done.

Glad to see some are finally getting it.

 

[NickCole]

I was dripping with sarcasm when I wrote that. Guess I should have stated that clearly altho I assumed readers would pick up on that. It was a response to Nickcole's comment on "bomb the shit out of it".

What Obama's doing is nothing but a big fat waste of money and lives.

I believe a peaceful solution is better but if you're going to be at war then do it to win and do it fast. It's stupid to play around the way Bush did and Obama is continuing to do.

 

[palemale]

I know you were being sarcastic, but the implication then is that you're NOT in favor of bombing other countries (right?), which is an admirable position, and one I agree completely with, and my point then is that you didn't seem to stand by this admirable position when you unfeelingly criticized and dismissed the pictures of the Afghan children who were harmed and killed during Obama's air raids.

But anyway, I addressed this better in my longer post and I don't want to be accused of turning this thread into a discussion about Afghanistan and war atrocities in general, when there are folks here still willing to discuss and debate Obama and the Peace Prize (and that is the topic on which I said I had registered my final comment).

Perhaps a thread on war atrocities is in order. Too many here are fine with bombing the shit out of countries, or have don't have a problem with our country torturing people. I'm sure if I reviewed enough threads, I'd find guys who are fine with both.

War is a complicated issue. The only thing about war that I think is uncomplicated, and that I think should be non-controversial, is that we should never go to war unless every possible avenue to avoid war has been tried and going to war would prevent a greater danger or evil from occurring.