I'm not outraged...

Confused, yes

I should have stopped, but no.

Your point?

Are you arguing? Doesn't look like it, you're just rephrasing, and asking a redundant question ("He gets a Nobel Prize for _____?") that should be asked towards the Norwegian Nobel Committee, not me.

Withdrawing troops decreases conflict between the United States, and the opposing forces. And what do you mean it would cause the extreimists to come back and a guerrilla war would resume? Two times you told me that the Iraq War ended, and you're saying they would come back? You seem to contradict yourself. Today, Iraq can defend itself without the US's help. Compared to Afghanistan, where 9/10 of the the Afghan military can't read, that is nowhere near to help themselves against extremists.

The US has a new face for a President, who appears to be more open with Russia, and wants to improve relations. I can call that a reset compared to the last eight years. Biden only made a side comment, but it doesn't mean he would want a weak Russia. And he isn't Obama.

[quote]I said they were "A LOT DIFFERENT". Obama didn't try to make Americans feel superior (I would say "Confident", not superior) if any comparison to the Nazis. So, a united (Multiracial, multicultural, accepting people who the hell they are), peaceful, better world is the definition of feeling superior? You are totally missed the point, and how can you miss that?

Nowhere being hurt, you're just a(n) _ _ _ _ _. And if any comparison, both Obama and Hitler gave confidence, anything else would be absolutely irrelevant since Hitler wanted the Germans to be proud that they are white, blond, and blue eyed, and on the other hand, Obama wants every race, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs to be treated equally. And by beliefs on race, at least that is relevant. Obama does not receive mass salutes from the audience, and not even in the US Marine base. Absolutely different.


"Comment: The nomination was withdrawn in a letter of February 1, 1939. " It was quickly withdrawn. Obama was nominated since January.

Plus, it was up to the Swedish/Norwegian that are responsible to give the Nobel Peace Prize to whomever, whether you agree someone deserves it or not, it's not up to you, not up to me, and not the choice for anyone complaining.

Krayzee, you're trying to justify Obama deserving this award. How can you do that and at the same time telling me to go ask someone else? This is a DISCUSSION. We're DISCUSSING whether he deserves it. I WOULD ask the committee, but I CAN'T, because they're in NORWAY and are probably SECLUDED. So, instead, in this thread, we're debating whether he deserves it. If you don't want to debate this, why the hell are you still posting?

You can't 'compare' resets. A reset is absolute. Something can't be a reset compared to anything. A reset would be both sides instantly dropping their Cold War suspicion. This is it. They would then reexamine everything, and more likely than not, start being enemies again, because Russia wants more control over Europe and the Middle East, and so does the US. This is not happening. This looks much more like a temporary 'truce'. Russia has more to gain than the US from the US winning in Afghanistan, and the US has a lot to lose, so relations have, probably temporarily, improved. NATO is still planning to expand, Ukraine and Georgia, the former reaching for the status of failed state and the latter not too far away, are still supported by the US, blah blah blah. What has happened is an 'improvement' in relations. It's where the US temporarily decided that it has bigger problems; this approach isn't a reset, because it implies that sooner or later, the attention will return.

I'll drop the Hitler comparison because you're not getting it and its pointless to argue (well, maybe it wasn't the best comparison), but this was enough to show that Hitler had a chance to win, and the only thing that stopped him is was his later warmongering.

So you concede every point except Iraq? Goodie. I'll somewhat concede this one. Iraq can defend itself, and withdrawing troops slightly decreases conflict and decreases war expenditures. However, this alone isn't enough for the nobel peace prize. At least, from my point of view, it shouldn't be. If you disagree, feel free to back it up.


Since you're still bashing me (and since Dapperdan decided to change the discussion quality by moving it to Null), I feel that it might amuse and/or interest any readers as to why you hate me so much. This is it: http://www.staredit.net/topic/5417/ It gets juicy in the last three pages.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Oct 11 2009, 1:27 pm by Centreri.

All i have to say about it is... LOL!
We will just have to wait and see ha...

In the future, NPPs will be on eBAY for .25 cents! It'll be like a gumball machine!

The Nobel Peace Prize is officially a joke, first Al Gore now Obama? This is ridiculous..

I don't see why you guys think that Al Gore is undeserving of the Nobel peace prize. He is one of the foremost advocates of global warming awareness, up until a couple years ago many thought global warming to be a hoax or merely a theory. What you people do not understand that with global warming, resources will be depleted leading to conflicts. Resources are often directly tied to wars. They awarded him the prize because of his role in bringing peace to a potential global conflict scenerio.

Now as for Obama the term "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." is VERY broad. And, although he is doing a much better job at increasing foreign diplomacy I agree that it is premature to give him this award when he has not done anything really outstanding.

Are you kidding me? Global warming is a natural process. CO2 levels are 0 compared to what they were in let's say.. the prehistoric era. The earth heats and cools naturally in cycles. Why do you think that "Ice Ages" have been reoccurring throughout the duration of Earth's existance?

Al Gore is a joke.

Oh, so they gave him a Nobel prize for maybe preventing conflicts that might happen in the future, perhaps? Good justification. The reason most believe global warming is a hoax is that it is a hoax. Global warming's a method to achieve an agenda.

Agreed.

Not true. Global warming has been around for...I'd guess roughly 4 billion years. What people never seem to understand is that our ego, our megalomania, leads us to think that we play a major role in it.
I'm not denying global warming exists, that's like denying evolution. What I'm saying is that our part in increasing global warming is minuscule at best.

But then you're asking me, despite that I clearly said: I agree it's premature. I'm telling you to ask a "someone else" that is responsible for handing the Nobel Peace Prize out. Sure you can "debate" whether or not someone deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but then you're asking me the question, redundantly. That's no debate, that sounds like nagging.

Let's see, Bush brought up the Missile Defense Shield, then Obama discarded it regardless if it made Russia happy or not. Russia hated Bush, and knows Obama is not a third Bush. A new face handing out sets of actions opposing to the last eight years of Bush is definitely a reset in definitions of knowing whether the US would act completely different. And Obama was rather accepted for it. And yes, sooner or later will imply that it is.

At what chance? His chances are incredibly slim, clearly under 0.00000000000000000000000001% percent. That nomination was immediately criticized anyways, so he didn't stand a chance.

I'm actually full of glee. You get the point (Except your beginning of overusing the word "slight"), but I don't care if you disagree.

People opposed you; even in the shoutbox. Regardless, was it necessary to post it up? I didn't even purposely made your nation lose epically, especially that it was premature for a nation that's not a primary was able to stand a chance at any war with actions that deliberately owned yourself. You're the only one who complained. But no, you just destroyed the sole purpose of a forum game. And this is off topic.

You brought it up.

The rest is pointless. You're trying to create an argument with me out of nothing. Or maybe I'm doing that. Probably you. Either way, I SHALL END IT!

I completely disagree with all the other people supporting the giving, but I've gotta give in my piece.
First, this prize is probably partly motivated by Obama's work to register black voters in Illinois. He did an excellent job, registering hundreds of thousands of blacks with little education (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/).
Also, I don't have a source for this next statement, but I vaguely remember Obama did work in getting western countries to forgive African debt. This reallyyy is important to African nations, as many are stuck being poor because any money they could spend improving the economy is spent paying off debts. Again, I don't have a source, so I'm not sure about it.

Two things: a quote I LOL at and an opinion I agree with.


And the opinion... I agree with those who say that Mukwege deserved the award more. Didn't know about him before, but I just read the wiki article, and... I'd gauge my reaction at something between "Damn, this guy is epic. O_O" and "Holy freaking crap, that's terrible! D:". Personally assisting the victims of such a brutal crime (one of the only two crimes that can never, under any circumstances, be validly justified)... Obama's good, but even I don't think he measures up to that. Not yet. Possibly not ever.