There is something odd about escalating a war just before receivng the Nobel Peace Prize

[TomClash]

Next week is Nobel Week and the Prize is presented on December 10th. I disagree with but respect and understand the President's reasons to escalate the War, but how can he in good conscience accept the status of Nobel Peace Laureate?

[VMI Dem]

1. Well, some said they awarded it on potential.

[QC]

2. Oh well, Kissinger got a peace prize, too. n/t

[baldguy]

3. Remember, some RW nutcase Swedish MP nominated Bush, too.

I guess, for some people, War really is Peace.

[optimator]

4. Is he still going to accept it in person?

I don't see how he could do that with a straight face.

[HughMoran]

5. Not a swaggering fake bravado idiot on world stage? Pulling out of Iraq? Date to leave Afghanistan?

He could have broken his campaign promise and dumped Afghanistan into the gutter, but he's not going to shirk his responibilities just because it's not popular with some people (in this case the left hates the escalation and the right hates that he's set a pull-out date.) Perfect decision? No. Perfect world? No. Pragmatic? Yes.

[TomClash]

6. You missed the point nt

[ShortnFiery]

13. No, it is nearly impossible for the world to hate him as much as BushCo,

but he's no longer viewed with "hope" but just another "politician."

Pragmatic? No, more like cold, calculated and conniving in favor of the moneyed ruling elite.

[ShortnFiery]

7. I would not be surprised if there's protesters in the streets on that day.

The love for Obama abroad has now been SQUANDERED by his choice to ramp up the warmongering in Afghanistan.

It's time to hit the streets! :thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

8. Odd? I would say "ridiculous, embarrassing, and tragic."

[TomClash]

11. I like the man so I am trying to be fair

It is not as Orwellian as when Arafat, Begin, Kissinger and Lee won the Nobel Peace Prize, but . . .

[TexasObserver]

18. Yes, sometimes it seems the committee is being ironic.

[Sultana]

9. two words: Nuclear Proliferation!

that's why he warn the award.

:eyes:

[TomClash]

15. So then starting a war with Iran

should win him a second Peace Prize - after all, that would be waged to stop nuclear proliferation. :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

16. Well, the longer we occupy those two Muslim nations, the even more al Qaeda may

be fruitful all over OTHER regions of the World and just acquire that Nuke. :nuke: :scared:

By our escalation, we are making Afghanistan as "the central front" of the WAR against al Qaeda and terroristic groups.

As such, we are neglecting to spend the $$$ and International - police work that would truly track down those terrorist "cells."

We're so busy getting our WAR ON, we're en-flaming anti-American sentiments all over the world as a consequence of occupying two Muslim countries.

We are playing right into al Qaeda's hands making it MORE FEASIBLE that they will acquire nukes in the near future.

It's truly Orwellian what Obama is doing to the American People. It's also VILE.

[ShortnFiery]

10. The world community will not understand or see it a cheap way for the MIC to make more money.

No, the World is going to turn on President Obama ... and he deserves it.

[Dr Robert]

12. He deserves the award for his move toward Nuclear Disarmament alone

but he has done much more to earn it.

A real strategy in Afghanistan with a real Exit Strategy will do more for Peace than a hasty withdrawal ever could.

[TomClash]

19. We will see

Funny how the Nobel Committee citation did not mention UNSEC R. 1887 or disarmament at all. And he could not have been nominated for that reason because the nominations were final only a month or so after his inauguration.

[Dr Robert]

20. do a little more reading on that.

The Nobel Committee has said that the Security Council vote was the deciding factor.

It may not have been the reason he was nominated,
but it is the reason he won.

[TomClash]

22. You can do a little more reading too

by reviewing 1887 and tell me why that largely aspirational document translates into a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Dr Robert]

23. because Russia and China joined in for the first time ever.

[TomClash]

24. Hmm

Not much substance in that.

[treestar]

14. Yasser Arafat should never have gotten it either then

It's more complex than that.

It doesn't mean you are never ever involved in a war.

Read nobelprize.com

Some people think it is such a thing that only Mother Theresa could get it.

It would automatically disqualify anyone who served in any capacity during a war, just by timing.

Maybe Warren G. Harding should have gotten it - wasn't he President during peacetime?

[Cha]

17. That goes way beyond the simple thinking of the op.

[TomClash]

21. If you review the list of Nobel Laureates

you will find most have not escalated wars.

I think you mean nobelprize.org

There is a a wide gulf between Mother Theresa and accelerating a war.

Look at the act itself - it's not "just by timing."

Maybe Stalin could have gotten it before WWII! :eyes:

[treestar]

27. No Stalin couldn't have gotten it

but could Churchill?

Why did Arafat and the two Israelis get it in 1994?

Why did Kissinger get it?

Because it's not automatic that "escalating" a war (continuing to deal with an already existing war in a more competent way) is a disqualifier.

Was Truman automatically disqualified for it in the late 1940s?

[rug]

25. I'm leaving the country if he win the Nobel Prize for Economics.

[butterfly77]

26. Why are you trying to pretend that..

the U.S. is not already over there. IF a president steps into office and a war has already started how is he creating war. Isn't his duty to come up with a plan to keep it going or get out.

What we have here is a plan to get out and if you don't like his plan tell me your plan on how to get out with details please...