Shouldn’t he get it just for signing the bill allowing concealed carry in national parks?
I’d guess that Obama won the Peace prize so that he feels under pressure and won’t decide to go on a bloody rampage. chuckles
And you moral relativism frightens me. Some cultures ARE, in general, better than others for our modern world. The Taliban oppression of women deserved to be stopped. Or do you suggest that it is just my insensitivity that leads me to think that way? Al-Queda’s extreme version of Islam need to be stopped. Or am I ethnocentric for believing so? That you think these are things that should be tolerated astounds me.
[QUOTE=bengangmo]
I am spluttering away here. I really don’t know how to even begin to respond to a post of such blatant, open minded pig stupidity. You lit the house on fire, and now when it stands burning its the fault of “everyone else” because they don’t send enough firemen to fight it for you?
[/QUOTE]
The fault lies with the people who allowed guys like Saddam to attain, and retain, power in the first place. And for those who didn’t kick him out when they had the chance the first time around.
Your analogy falls flat because firemen will help put out a fire even though your set it yourself. You can stand there while the house burns and accuse the person who set the fire of all sorts of things. It doesn’t help the people still trapped in the burning house. Maybe it makes you feel better eating popcorn while the house burns rather than man the firehose. I believe we should do something to make things better. It says a lot about those of you objecting to not helping in the name of ‘peace’ rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing something other than pointing and acting all indignant.
Do you still think Al-queda was in Iraq? (before the invasion?)
(And just to be sure, neither the Taliban was in Iraq.)
Please go over my whole posting history and see where I’ve ever claimed that Al-Queda was ever in Iraq?
And whether the Taliban was ever in Iraq isn’t relevant (they weren’t as far as I know). There was a dictator there who subjugated his people. The US went in and kicked him out for their reasons. It should happen to all dictators. I don’t care if they were good reasons that the US did this. What was good is that Saddam is no more. What happens now and in the future is what is important, not rehashing the past and assigning blame. Looking to the past should be used to determine if what they have now is better than what they had before. As it isn’t then it is up to someone to say either screw the people who live in these countries, or we should do something to make things better. The consensus I see here is that most want to point fingers rather than help out those in need. This tangent in this thread is about ‘peace’ and those who claim to strive for it. It usually means that a whole bunch of people get to remain living under dictators or theocracies without the basic rights you’d scream bloody murder over if they were taken away from you. Rights that you’d likely take up arms for if they were taken from you. Yet, using force (because dictators and theocrats tend not to give up ‘peacefully’) to help those other people is somehow not a good thing. To give Obama a peace prize just because there is less visible fighting (oh, wait, there isn’t) doesn’t mean that people are better off or that you’ve resolved the underlying issues that will make fighting likely to happen again in the future.
CannyDan was talking about Iraq. You ‘refuted’ his post by attacking the Taliban. As the Taliban has no connection with Iraq, it’s a classic strawman.
Moral relativism, thinking every single culture other than yours is good and valid, is no more or less scary than its counterpart, thinking every culture other than your own is bad and invalid. A dictatorship which brutalizes its subjects and a dictatorship which provides a benevolent life for its subjects are not the same thing. Similarly, a democracy that leaves its citizens worse off than a dictatorship is not necessarily the better answer just because it’s a democracy.
But we’ve done neither. We haven’t stopped Al Qaeda ( we’ve made them stronger ), nor have we ended the oppression of women in Afghanistan. Because we never actually cared. Your arguments over whether or not we we should intervene in other countries in order to save them from oppression is irrelevant because we have no intention of doing so.
And Iraq had nothing to do with the Taliban OR Al Qaeda.
Because they knew that the result would be even worse than Saddam which is what happened when we DID go in and kill him.
"Bluto: Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
*Otter *: [whispering] Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling."
-Animal House.
Uzi is on that kind of a roll.
Heh, no. You’re just not bright enough to follow along (or I’m jet lagged to hell and back).
Well, you had the chance to demonstrate your brilliance, but no evidence has come forth, CannyDan was talking about Iraq. Deal with it.
Yes, you have done neither. I’m suggesting that the combined ‘world’ could do better. If it can’t then shut down the UN and go home.
Yes, the world has no intention to interfere with people being oppressed by their governments. But, it awards a prize to a president of a country involved in wars (whether justified or not) in the hope that he’ll work towards peace. I suggest that the world doesn’t give a rats ass about peace. If it did it would get off its ass and do something about ensuring peace other than just give out awards. The attitude of “We have ours” and screw you you poor unfortunate sod for being born in an area where you don’t is offensive. Next time be born in a freer area and of the right skin color and sex.
The ‘civilized’ countries of the world aren’t having problems with countries where there is freedom and democracy. They have problems with the other countries. Those problems aren’t going to disappear if the US goes home tomorrow and you never hear from them again. They will just transfer to the rest of the world and peace will be broken again and again until the underlying issues are resolved. The issues are ignorance, poverty, and oppressive governments. Unfortunately, sometimes an oppressive governments are the only way to control ignorant people. Thus Saddam was much better than the US at doing so in Iraq. What is the US doing to resolve this in Iraq? Apparently nothing. Could the combined world do better. I guess I’m stupid in thinking so.
Some cultures are better at dealing with the changes that the modern world has brought about. Some cultures are better at dealing with small communities in an agricultural setting. Maybe it is important to circumcise women in some communities or stone them for being in the wrong place with a person of the opposite sex. I can’t for the life of me figure out why, but maybe if I was educated then I wouldn’t get upset about it and be happy for those who live there. Just as long as we don’t force them to change then it’s okay, right?
The democratic governments being installed in Afghanistan and Iraq can barely hold the country together, if that. They are probably going to be no better than what was before and it is likely that they’ll end up right where they started. The underlying issues like tribalism, radical (okay, not so radical, probably mainstream if we were all honest with each other here) Islam, etc, haven’t been resolved. Only a long term presence that involves stabilization, industrialization and re-education can rectify this. Something that I think one country would find it difficult to accomplish on its own.
And do what? Your argument is basically that War is Peace? It’s a Peace Prize, not a Democracy Prize or Agrees With America Prize. If Obama or anyone else goes around attacking other countries regardless of reason they don’t deserve a Peace Prize.
Yes, they ARE having problems. With America, to use the obvious example.
SOME will, without America working to impose those problems or worsen them.
After what America has done, almost certainly not. I seriously doubt that foreign intervention of any kind is going to be looked at fondly in Iraq for a long time. And the concepts of freedom and democracy have taken a massive beating in the region thanks to America. Thanks to America, they now mean things like “American puppet” and “piles of corpses.”
Good luck spreading freedom and democracy to people who think that means you intend to massacre them.
My argument is that sometimes you have to have war to gain peace. Sitting back and doing nothing when others are suffering might be peaceful to you, but it isn’t for those who suffer.
And they are fighting with the US, or are they discussing with the US?
And more problems will arise because the US wouldn’t be a threat to them. The USSR didn’t collapse in a vacuum.
I doubt foreign intervention is looked on fondly by those affected by it. Overwhelming force creating a stable environment that allows people to start rebuilding could allow people to adapt and grow to the stage where the intervention is no longer required, like in Japan and Germany after WW2.
Good luck doing it with wishful thinking and handing out peace prizes.
Thanks, all, for paraphrasing me in my absence. Your worthy efforts allowed me a good night’s sleep!
Uzi, the problem (as we see it) is that you advocate marshalling literally millions of troops to somehow more permanently settle Iraq down once and for all. Some of us find that to be both a practical impossibility and a morally repugnant suggestion.
You go further, suggesting that similar actions should be undertaken against a rather lengthy list of perceived enemies. So lengthy and inclusive does your list appear to be, that it would make either of the World Wars seem like restricted conflicts by comparison.
And you justify this, in fact you identify your enemies list, as being those who impose the “hancuffs of their culture, religion” (Your words, remember? The ones I said frightened me?) on themselves, when their culture and/or religion is different from your flavor of Americanism.
Your original statement aluded to “radical Islam” as your chosen enemy, but since then you’ve broadened this to include even “mainstream Islam”. Holy cow, dude, you’ve trumped even G W Bush and the Axis of Evil!! Your enemies list extends to the entire Muslim world, plus anybody else who is by your lights “oppressive”.
The very idea of “war to gain peace”, when you declare war on a culture or religion, has a special name. Is it really any wonder that some of us fail to see the brilliance of your suggestion?
So, you’d let people stay oppressed just because you find it difficult or repugnant to resolve the issue?
Is female circumcision a cultural practice you condone? Stoning people? Wouldn’t the world be a better place without them? You probably have them banned and those bans enforced in the country you live in, don’t you? You’d be upset if it was allowed? Yet it seems you are quite happy that others have the freedom to practice these things in their countries and are upset that I’d make the suggestion that they should be eliminated, by force if necessary. Kind of like the force you’d use on your own citizens if they violated such bans. Weird.
I broadened it as an aside. I’m an atheist. All religions are crazy to me. Some more so than others. I’d suggest a dialogue between all parties to find the best solution so that people can remain crazy if they so wish, but the rest of us who don’t subscribe to their particular brand of crazy aren’t affected by it.
My definition of ‘oppressive’ probably isn’t much different than yours, either. What interests me is that if you saw your neighbours being oppressed on a daily basis like some people are on a daily basis in other parts of the world, you’d likely take up arms to defend them. But you don’t see it on a daily basis and the world as you see it is ‘peaceful’, so all things are good for you, I guess. Kind of sucks for those people living under dictators, though, don’t you think?
Sigh. Please check and you will see that the word I chose was “impossibility”. It is impossible, regardless of the number of troops available, to free people from self-imposed oppression. People throughout the world are “oppressed” by their religions and their cultures. But if you think that you could somehow “free” those people from their chosen beliefs and their ingrained cultural systems by external force of arms, you’ve misread all of human history. Unless of course you intend to “free” them by killing every single one. That does actually work, but it is usually frowned upon. And it has that catchy name. That’s where “repugnant” comes in.
No, what is weird is your continued declaration that people’s social mores can be changed, dictated as it were, from outside. Oh, you probably don’t like the term dictator when used to describe your own actions, do you?
Personally I believe that female circumcision and stoning are out of place in the modern world. But then, some people don’t really live in the modern world, and I’m not in a position to dictate to them.
Realize that your comparison to “your own citizens” doesn’t fly. We citizens have a social contract between ourselves and our own chosen system of beliefs and practices. That contract includes both duties and obligations, and provides for a means of enforcement (our government) of those duties and obligations. Again, all this is self imposed.
Similarly, those societies you so roundly condemn also have their systems of beliefs and practices, and their own code of duties and responsibilities, and their own means of enforcement. Neither their beliefs and practices, nor their duties and responsibilities, nor even their enforcement systems are the same as ours. Still, they are all self imposed, just like ours. Changing them to suit you remains impossible.
You might be surprised at what I and others actually know about the world, but that is hardly the point. Suffice it to say that things suck for some people living under a wide variety of circumstances, dictatorships among them. Still, I am confident that few of them would willingly choose to accept your imposed dictatorship (“Oh, they’ll welcome us with open arms!”) in place of the one they’re used to. Especially when the transition involves piles of dead bodies.
That would be “funny” since a large part of e.g. Africas dictators are held in power or have even been brought into power by western multinational companies in exchange for mining and exploitation contracts.
Reminds one of The Fugs, circa 1966, with their hit single “Kill for Peace”. Bad idea then, worse idea now.
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Near or middle or very far east
Far or near or very middle east
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
If you don’t like the people
or the way that they talk
If you don’t like their manners
or they way that they walk,
Kill, kill, kill for peace…
- Prescient.
(Huh, fully two years before us hippies destroyed American society, as per Starving Artist.)
Thanks for the memories, 'luc.