Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My own admittedly naive and limited explanation for this award...
The world was so relieved in January that its most powerful nation was no longer controlled by a faction of vultures beholden to the American military-industrial complex that they'd readily plunge the USA into wars for profit that they took a collective deep breath, and said to themselves, "Finally! Those eight years are finished! We can relax now."
those years are finished? Hmmmm that seems odd considering the war drums are beating again.
Every President needs their own battle. Even Clinton, in our supposed time of peace made up a story to attack another nation.
In message 571 you made a statement saying that more deaths had occured during Obama's tenure than "in the previous 7 years".
I called you on this and asked you to provide proof.
You refused to provide proof while waffling about Afghanistan.
Can you read? Did I say in the previous 7 years combined? No. I provided the link, in this very thread, proving once again you are wrong. Go find it.
Quote:
The word Afghanistan did not appear message 571, needless to say.
It didn't need to, based on the discussion with the poster I was responding to, since it appeared in the previous posts. Again, you must need the "word" in order to follow along. That's what you get for not reading all the posts like 542,547,564,571 and the rest. If you STILL can't comprehend the discussion after going back to those posts, well, you have an even bigger problem than I thought.
Quote:
Subsequently, altering your original statement, you claimed that more deaths had occured during Obama's tenure than "in any previous 7"
Any previous 7 years, yes. Which is true. More soldiers have died there in this year than in any of the previous 7.
Quote:
You do know the difference between "in the previous 7 years" and
"in any previous 7", don't you?
It would make a difference if the word "combined" was there. Try again.
Quote:
Now supply me with the link to deaths in Afghanistan comparing the deathtoll during Obama's tenure to the total of the previous 7 years as stated in message 571.
4th time of asking.
Already did, in this thread. If you didn't look the first time, why bother? Better yet, make an effort and find the info for yourself. Although, if you're too lazy to go back a few pages and find the link, I doubt you would google it yourself.
"There will be some people who are saying 'Was it based on good intentions and thoughts or is it going to be based on good results?'"
"But I think the appropriate response is when anybody wins a Nobel Prize, that is a very noteworthy development and designation and I think the appropriate response is to say 'Congratulations.'"
It is a great day for america.
God knows it's needs all the good publicity it can get.
You know most countries can put their partisanship behind them to rally around the awarding of a prize to a politician.
Some yanks need to get around their prejudice and bias and applaud this
great award.
No, what it really shows is how ignorant (fooled) the rest of the world is of Barack Obama. They only know him by grandiose speeches. That's it. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nothing else. Meanwhile, where it really matters, is back here in the United States, where grandiose speeches mean nothing and action is everything. I defy you, or anyone else, to show us what actions Obama has taken that have resulted in something positive for this country domestically. If you say "the stimulus," you too will get laughed at abundantly.
OSLO - President Barack Obama on Friday won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Obama was honored for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Which cooperation would that be? (You knew someone would ask)
If you say Iran, you'll get laughed at abundantly. So who, exactly, can you say that Obama has garnered cooperation from that no other person before him has been able?
Anyone who laughs will expose themselves fools to think it's better to have Iran pursuing their nuclear goals unfettered while we ignore them, than to actually get them to the table at all. It's naive in the extreme to think Iran will just one day wake up and decide all on their own to give up their nuclear program or work with the world community to even begin to curtail it. The only way the world stands a chance of them coming around is by bringing them around, and we can't bring them around if we aren't even speaking to them.
Quote:
GENEVA — Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said.
Iran’s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing — if it happens — would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.
THE United States and Russia are to slash their nuclear stockpiles by up to a third as part of a move to improve relations between the former Cold War foes.
The weapons deal was agreed in principle after four hours of talks at the Kremlin between US president Barack Obama and Russia's Dmitry Medvedev. Moscow also said it would allow the US to fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan.
International Institute for Strategic Studies 07 Jul 2009 - - Scotsman - US and Russia to scrap 2000 nuclear weapons (http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/july-2009/us-and-russia-to-scrap-2000-nuclear-weapons/ - broken link)
Scoff all you'd like, but you are and will be safer under this President than you ever were under George W. Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan.
I don't see that speech as being humble. I see it as being a fake rationalization to accept an award that others were more deserving of. I wouldn't accept that award if I was the President. I think it would have shown more humility and earned him more respect had he not accepted the award and rightfully bestowed it upon one who was more worthy.
It's not up to President Obama to determine who might be more worthy than him. For G-d's sake, he isn't even privy to the list of nominees! Ridiculous.
President Barack Obama Plans To Donate $1.4M Of His Nobel Peace Prize Money To Charity - cbs3.com (http://cbs3.com/topstories/obama.peace.prize.2.1237557.html - broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
