Awkward: Pres. Obama Has Bombed Seven Countries Since Accepting Nobel Peace Prize

Well he didn't do a d*mn thing to deserve it...at least now he's doing SOMETHING!

Right?

a reply to: neo96

I was referring to the current wars after 9/11....the wars that Obama inherited and promised to end, but didn't. Sorry to say, Bush did start those wars. Of course presidents before him have dirty hands, but Bush gets credit for the post-9/11 conflicts and Obama gets to own the actions taken under his watch.

ETA: That link is a list of terror attacks. Not wars started by the US. Sort of irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

originally posted by: boogeywoogey

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: boogeywoogey

'Let me be clear'.

Gm is alive and AQ is dead.

Er wait a second.

They just changed their names.

To ISIS or the 'new' enemy called Khorasan.

Then they will change their names again.

And again.

As long as foreign policy decisions are driven by politics.

It will never end.

It has nothing to do with 'allow'.

Okay let me be clear.

If you think there is no danger from the middle east you're crazy.

If you believe the U.S. or any other country is creating some type of huge conspiracy you're crazy.

Simply put there are people who hate our way of life. Those people want to kill us.

It's simple.

Grow up.

I agree that there are threats from the Middle East but it has much more to do with our own meddling with those people's affairs than our "way of life."

There's a reason they want to attack the U.S. and a few key allies and not, for example, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. who also have a "westernized" style of life.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Current war ?

It is the same GD war that the last 6 administrations have been dealing with.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Current war ?

It is the same GD war that the last 6 administrations have been dealing with.

If that's the case, why are you trying to blame Clinton? This would then be on the hands of Ford or Nixon. Both republicans.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

If that's the case, why are you trying to blame Clinton? This would then be on the hands of Ford or Nixon. Both republicans.

Well damn excuse me.

I should have just blamed republicans as everyone 'knows' they at at fault for EVERYTHING.

But none of them have a nobel peace prize.

a reply to: neo96

I'm not trying to blame anyone, except Bush AND Obama for their actions. I'm also agreeing with how it's hypocritical that Obama got a peace prize.

You're the one trying to blame democrats. I'm actually agreeing with you on this topic and it's still not good enough?

Unfortunately, you will have to come to the realization that both the Dems and Reps have blood on their hands and there is no way of weaseling away from that reality.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Unfortunately, you will have to come to the realization that both the Dems and Reps have blood on their hands and there is no way of weaseling away from that reality.

Only one side gets away with it.

As there is no BETTER EXAMPLE of that nobel peace prize winning potus.

That is the reality.

Where are the effing chants of OBama lied and people died ?

WHERE ?

Lots of blood on his hands.

MORE than the last guys.

a reply to: neo96

That's a good question, Neo. Why aren't the people that blasted Bush also taking Obama to task?

Perhaps they are partisan hypocrites that weren't really against the war as much as they were Bush.

My opinion is that both Bush and Obama are both responsible for many, many deaths and since I do not have an allegiance to a party to uphold, I don't have to say one is worse than the other.

To do so undermines the atrocities of the other.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: neo96

Nobel Peace Prize is and has always been, a joke IMO.

Alfred Nobel(the guy who it was named after) was the inventor of dynamite for #'s sake.

Dynamite was invented to improve safety and save lives in the mining industry, where unstable explosives were killing an awful lot of people. That's an odd example to pick if you want to claim that the Peace Prize is a "joke".

Now, if you had mentioned the fact that Alfred Nobel also went on to build a massive network of armament factories (the company Bofors are famous for their Very Big Guns) despite being a self-proclaimed pacifist and sponsoring a peace prize, then you might be on to something!

a reply to: EvillerBob

So for a man who later went on to create a giant network of weapons factories(based on the peaceful dynamite)...you're going to believe the claim that his reason for inventing dynamite was to improve safety? To help people?



Alfred Nobel's life work was creating easier and more efficient ways to blow # up: People, mountains, armies...you name it.

I think we can agree on this though:

The award board is full of #. Obama is full of #. Alfred Nobel was full of #. Seems only right that Obama would win the award.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: EvillerBob

So for a man who later went on to create a giant network of weapons factories(based on the peaceful dynamite)...you're going to believe the claim that his reason for inventing dynamite was to improve safety? To help people?

I completely believe that he invented it to make more money, and the mining industry (not to mention transport industry - the folks who needed to blow holes in mountains to build roads and railways) would throw buckets of money at someone who could make explosives safer to handle and use. He also lost his younger brother to an accident with explosives, so there might of been some personal reasons as well.

I completely agree that the idea of Nobel sponsoring a Peace Prize is bizarre, the idea of handing a Peace Prize to an incoming President who hadn't even got his feet under the desk is ridiculous, and the idea of President Obama (who has probably done more to destabilise the Middle East, not to mention eastern Europe, than anyone else for generations) being given a Peace Prize is one of the most mind-bogglingly ludicrous things I have heard for years.

I just wished you had picked one of the many fine examples of hypocrisy from Nobel's career, instead of one of the few examples that was actually primarily industrial ("peaceful") in nature.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I picked dynamite because the invention of diatomaceous earth/nitroglycerine controlled demolition has had severe consequences. Perhaps you feel the industrial basis of the invention makes it more peaceful, but like all inventions involving great sources of power, the worst and sometimes first applications are violent. I think his reasons behind the invention were selfish and in no way had anything to do with helping anyone.

I felt it was a good example due to the fact that this is a conspiracy site. How many 9/11 topics are posted on a regular basis involving controlled demolition? Better to point to the master of controlled demolition himself: Alfred Nobel, the king of destruction who then created an award and claimed to be a pacifist.

Good lord, if this guy lived today there would be a topic dedicated to him every week!

Can someone tell me why he won it in the first place?

originally posted by: crazyewok
Can someone tell me why he won it in the first place?

He wasn't Bush.

Afirmative action where people get jobs and things regardless of qualifications.

originally posted by: neo96

He wasn't Bush.

Im not Bush either. Can I get a Nobel prize?

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Current war ?

It is the same GD war that the last 6 administrations have been dealing with.

If that's the case, why are you trying to blame Clinton? This would then be on the hands of Ford or Nixon. Both republicans.

In my very short lifetime I remember these troubles with the middle east go back to Carter for the kidnappings prior to Reagan. Then during Reagan they started blowing up embassy's and started the escalation of terror. Prior to this was the installation of the Shah's puppet government by the US. That is a little old for me to remember. But the middle east has had problems with the US since the 70's.

a reply to: neo96

The whole thing is weird though. Wasn't Nobel an explosives manufacturer?

Blame Obama, Blame Bush, Blame Clinton.....

Meanwhile the AIPAC Traitors who are both Democrats and Republicans get a Free Pass.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Current war ?

It is the same GD war that the last 6 administrations have been dealing with.

If that's the case, why are you trying to blame Clinton? This would then be on the hands of Ford or Nixon. Both republicans.

In my very short lifetime I remember these troubles with the middle east go back to Carter for the kidnappings prior to Reagan. Then during Reagan they started blowing up embassy's and started the escalation of terror. Prior to this was the installation of the Shah's puppet government by the US. That is a little old for me to remember. But the middle east has had problems with the US since the 70's.

If we are to look at this honestly, it goes back to the CIA involvement in the Iran coup of 1953. Our government has been sticking their noses where it doesn't belong for many years and it spans many administrations and many political ideologies.

To blame one party or the other, not saying You are, shows either a lack of understanding or a partisan hypocrisy......or maybe both.

ETA: A little tidbit of info: Carter is known as the only president in modern history to not wage war.