Juxtapose Obama’s winning the Nobel peace prize and the recent SNL parody and you could see why for a lot of people, it crystallized the idea that even when he hasn’t accomplished anything, his fans will always adore him. Much like when he was elected to the presidency. With very little experience and no accomplisment, he was elected by the sheer magnitude of the adulation of his fans. He has that ability - witness now his winning the Nobel Peace Prize. It practically solidified the “Kool Aid” meme as in, a lot of you are drinking to much of the hopey changey flavor. I really hope his fans will get tired of it and demand substance next time.
Hey Charlie, he’s starting to get it!
Probably better off than they would be with the American version of “helping” them. Which would involve killing a great many people, leaving chaos and wreckage behind, then squatting on the wreckage expecting them to love us for it.
Certainly not with us in the way, and not after we have screwed up as much as we have.
For one thing, we could help people who want to be helped, in the way they want to be helped. Instead of charging in, killing and destroying and doing nothing at all to actually help. We didn’t help Iraq. We didn’t try to help Iraq. We didn’t want to help Iraq. What we did was an act of aggression, not the noble deed you so obviously want to believe it was.
Did you actually bother to read the thread? Or did you just copy and paste from some right wing rant?
I’m actually a liberal but don’t let that stop you.
But you apparently haven’t read the thread.
I have.:rolleyes: Unfortunately, I don’t believe most of the Kool-aid drinkers’ expressions of surprise over Obama’s win. Of course they would all say that they don’t think Obama deserves it because they’ll get slammed if they don’t. How would I really know in RL? Three months from now, these same people will be bandying about Obama’s win as if it’s a worthy accomplishment forgetting that Obama got it out of the cult of celebrity that Obama invariably forms out of the gullible in the US and everywhere else. In the past (and legitimately so), Obama’s only claim to any credible achievement is getting elected by the gullible. It has just been further confirmed by his winning an undeserved Nobel.
You can be a “liberal” and *still *get your talking points from the Right-wing outlets. One does not necessarily preclude the other.
So basically, you can’t know that all the people saying they don’t approve of the award are telling the truth. But you CAN know that three months from now they’ll be praising Obama for it.
And whether or not you are a liberal ( I have my doubts ) you sound like a cut and paste job from some right wing commentator. Kool Aid drinking, cult of celebrity, gullible voters, no achievements, and so on. Are you going to claim he’s really a Kenyan Muslim socialist next?
Since the rednecks and religious fanatics did NOT vote for him and he DID get the majority vote, that doesn’t leave many gullible 
Or does “gullible” translate into “people who do not think as I do”?
Gosh, I thought it was against the rules to call other posters liars.
There is that. OTOH, there is also a certain resistance on the part of most posters to accepting that the insulting soubriquet of “Kool-aid drinker” applies to them.
I prefer the cherry flavor myself.
I’m talking about the ‘world’ version. So, it is better that those people rot in the name of ‘peace’ rather than be helped. Got ya.
Well, it is nice to know that the world has been asking the US to leave (it has), so that they can then go in and clean up the mess (no mention of this anywhere, funny that).
Right, the Iraqis wanted to be controlled by Saddam. The same way NKs want to be controlled by Kim. And women want to be beaten by the Taliban, etc. I guess that they aren’t clamouring at out doorstep wanting us to help them means they are perfectly happy with their lot in life. And I guess if we take their silence to mean that they do want help (or the few that manage to get out of hancuffs of their culture, religion, etc) all we have to do to help them is to ask guys like Saddam to stop subjecting their people. He was a reasonable guy, he’d do it. The same as Kim is doing it now, and the same as any other dictator has done in the past before.
Whatever makes you sleep at night, bub. As long as you sleep safe and sound then the world is right, huh?
Before we went into Iraq, women were over half the students in college. They were able to work outside their homes. The different religious sects lived next to each other in peace and intermarried. Women could wear western clothes if they chose to. Baghdad was a beautiful city.
Saddam was a thug but he was their thug and their problem. We have no right to ignore national sovereignty. We have no right to overthrow a government we do not like. If you think it is our mission to change dictator type governments, when should we go into China?
It is hard to see how causing a million-plus foreign civilian deaths and creating millions of refugees in a country that isn’t a threat while trashing our own economy, leaving us less able to meet larger domestic and international challenges, serves the cause for peace.
If you were a true patriot, you could. 
I never said the way they did it was the correct way or the only way, now did I?
Liz Cheney spells it out for the rest of us:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003221236
She’s got the false dichotomy down pretty good. America’s interests needn’t be out of line with those of Europe. We have much, much more in common than we have differences.
We haven’t left yet. And what makes you think that the damage we have done is fixable, especially by outsiders?
I expect that they prefer those things over being “saved” the way we “save” people. Better to just be oppressed, than to be living in a devastated nation, hungry in the dark, surrounded by the corpses of your friends and family and still being oppressed.
Besides, we didn’t attack Iraq to help anyone besides ourselves in the first place, and we failed at that. You sound like some Communist trying to claim that the Soviets took over Eastern Europe for their own good.