Check out some similar questions!

earl237 · Nov 26, 2009, 04:03 PM

Obama won the Nobel Peace prize for doing nothing and he is now refusing to sign an international treaty banning land mines. Giving him the prize is a real insult to deserving winners such as Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walesa and Anwar Sadat among many others. There really should be an asterisk beside Obama's name when the winners are shown in history books.

paraclete · Nov 26, 2009, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by earl237

Obama won the Nobel Peace prize for doing nothing and he is now refusing to sign an international treaty banning land mines. Giving him the prize is a real insult to deserving winners such as Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walesa and Anwar Sadat among many others. There really should be an asterisk beside Obama's name when the winners are shown in history books.

This is what happens when an undeserving candidate is given the Peace prize

Fr_Chuck · Nov 26, 2009, 06:31 PM

Well he did say he would bring CHANGE, so

smazhar2 · Nov 26, 2009, 07:29 PM

Okay... so what is the question?

tomder55 · Nov 27, 2009, 04:08 AM

Like most everything else about President Obama ;he has advanced because of people's expectations rather than anything concrete he has delivered.
Simularily the Nobel Committee expects he will be worthy of the prize at some future date.

NeedKarma · Nov 27, 2009, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by smazhar2

okay...so what is the question?

You're new here. This place is full of far-right conservatives that love to bash on anything liberal... everyday.

tomder55 · Nov 27, 2009, 04:57 AM

By the way ;in truth ,Obama has not refused to sign the treaty... he's just doing one of those endless deliberations he's famous for. Oh yes... initially it was announced that the US would not change it's policies... but when the heat over the announcement made it onto Huffington Post and Sen Leahy was critical,he waffled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/wo...s/26mines.html

Catsmine · Nov 27, 2009, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by smazhar2

okay...so what is the question?

Note the Forum group this is under: "Member Discussions." This "Current Events" topic group normally hosts debates and arguments over political issues.

excon · Nov 27, 2009, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

expectations rather than anything concrete he has delivered.
Simularily the Nobel Committee expects he will be worthy of the prize at some future date.

Hello again, earl:

I am VERY troubled by a president who sends his troops off to war, and stops by Copenhagen on the way home to collect his peace prize.

excon

paraclete · Nov 27, 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Note the Forum group this is under: "Member Discussions." This "Current Events" topic group normally hosts debates and arguments over political issues.

Is that what we are doing?

Catsmine · Nov 27, 2009, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Is that what we are doing?

If not, what?

tomder55 · Nov 28, 2009, 03:34 AM

Hello again, earl:

I am VERY troubled by a president who sends his troops off to war, and stops by Copenhagen on the way home to collect his peace prize.

Yeah Woodrow Wilson should never have won the prize . Obviously you can't advance the cause of peace by fighting wars or showing strength. You need to be an appeaser like Jimmy Carter.
Actually ,come to think of it ,Wilson didn't win the prize for his contributions for ending WWI . He won it for proposing the failed League of Nations. I take it back Wilson was a worthy recipient .

I wonder why Neville Chamberlain was never awarded the prize ? It doesn't seem right that his brother Austen got one for the original caving in to German demands with the failed Locarno Pact while Neville never received one for selling out Czechoslovakia.
Said Austen at the time the Locarno Pact was signed ,the pact was "the beginning, and not the end, of the noble work of appeasement in Europe." He added ;"No British government would ever risk the bones of a single British grenadier for the Polish corridor." uh huh !

The Nobel Committee has awarded the prize many times to fools such as he.

twinkiedooter · Dec 1, 2009, 06:29 PM

Sending our troops to Afghanistan simply to "carve out" the territory for the drug trade. Remember the opium production has skyrocketed and somebody (the US) will have to round up all that bad opium and be sure it's safely transported to the countries that really need it... like we need more opium. But, opium and drugs are BIG money and the US just has to have their mits in the big money. Nothing like sending our troops to guard poppy fields and opium factories. Forget about "terrorists". What terrorists? It's called money, pure and simple in the form of opium and drugs.

The Nobel Peace Prize is given to some rather shady folks over the years. Obama is definitely one of them who does not deserve it. Just WHAT has this man done? The only answer I can come up with is he singlehandedly trashed the United States and is still trashing it - financially and morally. And for that he should NOT get a prize. Maybe the Hitler Nation Trashing Prize would be more fitting for him. Or the Stalin Kill Everyone Prize.

paraclete · Dec 1, 2009, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Sending our troops to Afghanistan simply to "carve out" the territory for the drug trade. Remember the opium production has skyrocketed and somebody (the US) will have to round up all that bad opium and be sure it's safely transported to the countries that really need it.... like we need more opium. But, opium and drugs are BIG money and the US just has to have their mits in the big money. Nothing like sending our troops to guard poppy fields and opium factories. Forget about "terrorists". What terrorists? It's called money, pure and simple in the form of opium and drugs.

The Nobel Peace Prize is given to some rather shady folks over the years. Obama is definitely one of them who does not deserve it. Just WHAT has this man done? The only answer I can come up with is he singlehandedly trashed the United States and is still trashing it - financially and morally. And for that he should NOT get a prize. Maybe the Hitler Nation Trashing Prize would be more fitting for him. Or the Stalin Kill Everyone Prize.

Surely you are not skeptical about Obama's resolve to deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not a mention of Bin Laden, I guess he is no longer part of the Afghanistan equation, seriously neither is Al qaeda, but you shouldn't suggest that Obama is a drug dealer. If agent orange hadn't been so successful in Vietnam it could be used in Afghanistan to solve the Opium problem, but 30000 men in those opium provances can certainly make a mess of the opium crop. I hear a Bradley doing wheelies does wonders for the crop

speechlesstx · Dec 11, 2009, 11:31 AM

I have to say Obama gave a pretty good speech yesterday, although he skipped out on lunch with the king and otherwise snubbed his hosts. Their solution at one event? They replaced him with a cardboard cutout. I love it, lol!

earl237 · Dec 11, 2009, 01:29 PM

The part about the cardboard cutout is hilarious!

tomder55 · Dec 11, 2009, 01:51 PM

The 1st 3rd of it was what you would've expected from a Democrat in the days of Truman and JFK.He unapologetically praised the US role in preserving freedom in the post-WWII era. The fact that he went overseas and did not spend the entirety of his address apologizing was progress in itself.

He walked the tight rope being a Peace Prize recipient and a CIC who is raising the ante in Afghanistan. So the 'just war ' doctrine got lip service.
He said "A nonviolent movement could not have stopped Hitler's armies."

That pretty much goes without saying . However ,tying this back to the earlier theme of appeasers getting the prize; when Chamberlain met with Hitler in 1938 to do the diplomatic jaw jaw, and Hitler told him he wanted Sudetenland ;had Chamberlain's approach been one taken from strength, the events of the late 1930s would likely have been quite different.

All that was needed was for Chamberlain to say was that he would support the French and their 100 divisions poised to intervene if Hitler entered the Sudetenland and events would've played out differently . Hitler did not have the strength to oppose them ;and the German High command knew it . They would've removed Hitler from power.

Just before Chamberlain capitulated to Hitler, Halder -- in an attempt to avoid war -- discussed with several other generals the idea of removing Hitler from power. However, on September 29 Chamberlain gave in to Hitler's demands, and Halder's plot to remove Hitler died as peace had been preserved.

http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8...6824.xml&style
Chamberlain's show of spine would've been a nonviolent means of stopping Hitler right in his track. Peace through strength . I don't think the President understands that and I know the people in Oslo don't .