|
Post by Flix on Oct 9, 2009 14:44:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 9, 2009 14:49:05 GMT
Well, that's the first time I've seen this awarded to someone who hasn't actually done anything peaceful, yet. Very strange decision.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 9, 2009 15:04:24 GMT
you mean apart from replacing bush?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 9, 2009 15:27:04 GMT
My first thought, actually, DPR. Seemed a bit cynical, even by my standards... But maybe not, if you're thinking that, too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 9, 2009 15:42:13 GMT
Ah, Obama... He certainly didn't deserve it, check out this article by Chris Hedges: They're Obama's wars nowBarack Obama showed that he is as capable of doublespeak as any other politician when he announced an end to the war in Iraq. Combat troops are to be pulled out of Iraq by August 2010, he said, but some 50,000 occupation troops will remain behind. Someone should let the Iraqis know the distinction. I doubt any soldier or Marine in Iraq will notice much difference. Many combat units will simply be relabeled as noncombat units. And what about our small army of well-paid contractors and mercenaries? What about the three large super-bases, dozens of smaller military outposts, and our imperial city, the Green Zone? Will American corporations give up their lucrative control of Iraqi oil?
The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. This is not a withdrawal. It is occupation lite. And as long as American troops are on Iraqi soil, the war will grind on, the death toll on each side will continue to mount, and we will remain a lightning rod for hatred and rage in the Middle East.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has not promoted U.S. security or stability in the Middle East. These occupations have furthered the spread of failed states, increased authoritarianism and unleashed savage violence. They have opened up voids of lawlessness, including in nearby Pakistan. These occupations have mocked the rule of law. We have become an outlaw state intent on creating more outlaw states. The occupations have empowered Iran, as well as Russia and China, which gleefully watch our self-immolation. And, in the end, we cannot win these wars. We will withdraw all our troops in an orderly manner or see these occupations collapse in bloodshed.
Iraq, because of our invasion and occupation, no longer exists as a unified country. The Kurds have set up a de facto state in the north. The Shiites control most of the south. The center of the country remains a battleground. There are at least 2 million Iraqis who have fled their homes and are internally displaced. Another 2 million have left the country, most to Syria and Jordan, which now has the largest number of refugees per capita of any country on Earth. And perhaps as many as 1 million Iraqis are dead because of what we have done.
The eight-year war in Afghanistan has seen the Taliban re-emerge from the ashes. An additional 30,000 troops will do little to prop up the corrupt regime of Hamid Karzai. Our attempt to buy off Afghan tribal groups with money and even weapons has collapsed, with most slipping back into the arms of the Taliban insurgents. The U.N. estimates that the Taliban is now raking in $300 million a year from the expanded poppy trade to fund the resistance. The Taliban controlled about 75 percent of Afghan territory when we invaded eight years ago. It has recaptured about half of the country since its initial defeat, and its reach has expanded to the outskirts of major cities such as Kabul and Kandahar.
Twenty-nine American troops died in Afghanistan during the first two months of 2009, a threefold increase compared with the eight who died during the same period last year. And more Afghan civilians are dying in allied operations than at the hands of the Taliban, according to a count by the Associated Press. In the first two months of the year, American, NATO or Afghan forces have killed 100 civilians, while militants have killed 60.
Do the cheerleaders for an expanded war in Afghanistan know any history? Have they studied what happened to the Soviets, who lost 15,000 Red Army soldiers between 1979 and 1988, or even the British in the 19th century? Do they remember why we went into Afghanistan? It was, we were told, to hunt down Osama bin Laden, who is now apparently gone. Has anyone asked what our end goal is in Afghanistan? Is it nation-building? Have we declared war on the Taliban? Or is this simply the forever war on terror?
Al-Qaida, which we have also inadvertently resurrected, still finds plenty of recruits. It still carries out attacks in London, Madrid, Iraq and now Afghanistan, which did not experience suicide bombings until December 2005. Al-Qaida has moved on. But we remain stuck, confused, and lashing about wildly like a wounded and lumbering beast.
The U.S. agreement with Iraq, known as SOFA, or status of forces agreement, calls for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. But this seems very unlikely. I suspect this will be handled by having our client government in Baghdad "request" that we remain, making an even greater farce of our public commitment to democracy.
Even if some troops do leave Iraq, the U.S. military will have to rely more heavily on airstrikes to control territory and keep insurgents at bay. The airstrikes in Afghanistan have, along with the expanded fighting, driven tens of thousands of Afghan refugees into Iran and Pakistan. Even the Karzai government has vigorously protested these airstrikes, which feed scores of recruits to the Taliban. Expect the same ugly backlash in Iraq.
The war in Iraq, like Afghanistan, will go on. Our imperial projects and killing will continue. Many more will die.So much for all the "yes we can!"
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 9, 2009 16:08:11 GMT
I also tend to think that it is somewhat premature - what I can speculate is that the decision is a way to put some pressure 8and backing) on his good intentions.
After all, it would be kind of embarrassing if one wouldn't actually achieve something after that...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 9, 2009 17:50:05 GMT
But embarrassing for whom? Might as well have given it to Santa Claus at this point, seeing as it's a fantasy award...
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 9, 2009 18:50:12 GMT
Golly. This is entirely uncalled for. This guy hasn't [Censored]ing done anything. Really people? Really.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 9, 2009 23:30:36 GMT
Golly. This is entirely uncalled for. This guy hasn't [Censored]ing done anything. Really people? Really. Ya think.. He didn't even do anything for peace BEFORE he was prez, and he hasn't done anything since.... The question needs to be asked....what possible motive could be behind this travesty.....I think it is simply that they see Obama as one of their own......seriously left wing...
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Oct 10, 2009 0:56:23 GMT
@ THD I saw this topic too late, so I hope you don't mind but I deleted mine in the General
As Obama said himself, he agrees that he didn't deserve the Nobel Prize at all. But he's giving it away for good causes. and I think it's a good start for him to accomplish what he promised to do.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 10, 2009 6:24:53 GMT
He didn't even do anything for peace BEFORE he was prez, and he hasn't done anything since.... Sure he has. He's started working on repairing the American relationships to foreign nations. Not anywere near enough to win a Noble Prize, but still. The funny thing is that he got nominated on Febuary the first. He was sworn into office around noon on Jan 20th. So he'd been in office for a whooping eleven days when they nominated him! I remember him going out hard from the start, but THAT hard? Übereil
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 10, 2009 9:21:09 GMT
Golly. This is entirely uncalled for. This guy hasn't [Censored]ing done anything. Really people? Really. Ya think.. He didn't even do anything for peace BEFORE he was prez, and he hasn't done anything since.... The question needs to be asked....what possible motive could be behind this travesty.....I think it is simply that they see Obama as one of their own......seriously left wing... When you say one of their own , do you mean another corporate figurehead? because the supposed left and right wing do not exist..we live in a world ruled by money ...social issues are secondary to corporate interests and "both parties" serve the money masters. once again there is no left and right wing , the supposed two parties are only still mentioned to us because we must persist in the illussion that we have at least some choice. in fact we never have a choice ..
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 10, 2009 13:58:05 GMT
Ya think.. He didn't even do anything for peace BEFORE he was prez, and he hasn't done anything since.... The question needs to be asked....what possible motive could be behind this travesty.....I think it is simply that they see Obama as one of their own......seriously left wing... When you say one of their own , do you mean another corporate figurehead? because the supposed left and right wing do not exist..we live in a world ruled by money ...social issues are secondary to corporate interests and "both parties" serve the money masters. once again there is no left and right wing , the supposed two parties are only still mentioned to us because we must persist in the illussion that we have at least some choice. in fact we never have a choice .. Yep, how true. About the most we can do about it that's still legal is pray... Let's just hope this forces him to gain some momentum in all his promises. EDIT: @ Gal: Good thing you deleted it there, this is a political topic, henceforth better positioned in this section of CC.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Oct 10, 2009 22:42:02 GMT
In all honesty this award was probably given to him to pressure him into pulling out of the middle east. It looks bad to be given the peace prize and then order another 30,000 troops into a war. I doubt obama will allow himself to be manipulated so easily, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 11, 2009 6:30:15 GMT
I suspect you're totally right, Lews - on all counts. The chance of Obama or any other world leader being pressured by a board of academics giving them a prize is as absurd as it gets. But it likely IS the reasoning. The prize giver panel need to get out more, I think...
|
|
rhiian
Chaosite
One person making something up is a liar, but a bunch of people doing it is Government.
Posts: 661
|
Post by rhiian on Oct 11, 2009 9:27:05 GMT
surely there's a scientist out there who cured a disease or made vital solitary research, or used themselves as a lab rat who would be more deserving?
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 11, 2009 10:29:27 GMT
surely there's a scientist out there who cured a disease or made vital solitary research, or used themselves as a lab rat who would be more deserving? Most certainly there are several, if not a few hundred. But like Lews said, this was most likely a way of pressuring Obama into fulfilling his promises, and not escalating the conflict in Iraq. We'll have to see what happens as a result, who knows, maybe all US troops can leave Iraq next year? I sure hope so, they've caused more than enough misery and suffering there already... But that's probably not gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 11, 2009 10:54:06 GMT
One point there, Dragon. While there are undoubtedly a few bad apples in any army, the occupation forces in Iraq are trying their best to do a very hard job in intolerable conditions and under extreme pressure.
Please remember to put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the scumbag politicians that sent them there and force them to remain there.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 11, 2009 16:12:34 GMT
One point there, Dragon. While there are undoubtedly a few bad apples in any army, the occupation forces in Iraq are trying their best to do a very hard job in intolerable conditions and under extreme pressure. Please remember to put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the scumbag politicians that sent them there and force them to remain there. Absolutely Correct EK, don't blame the military....but why do you call them "occupation" forces..??
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 11, 2009 16:26:30 GMT
Because they are currently occupying a country that has been conquered through military force, ss. What on Earth else would you call them? Putting the blame for the invasion firmly where it belongs does not in any way make the occupation of Iraq anything other than what it is.
Setting up a puppet govt in no way makes an occupation legitimate.
|
|