Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: chief1983 on December 29, 2009, 07:21:00 pm
-
Obama gets Peace Prize
Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan
Obama tells Russia to build more advanced missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8434260.stm)
Am I missing anything? I'm not a fan of Obama, but what do all you liberals make of this? I seriously want to know.
-
3 things related to Obama, what's not to get?
-
He appears to be referring to Obama sometimes seemingly being against peace even though he won the peace prize and talks about peace and that the peace prize and him talking about peace contradicts sending more troops in and things like that.
-
How do we give the peace prize to a man who's telling someone to make more weapons?
-
Obama tells Russia to build more advanced missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8434260.stm)
That isn't what is said in the article
Earlier Mr Putin said the US plans would allow them to do whatever they wanted and thus upset the balance.
He said that "to preserve the balance, we must develop offensive weapons systems", but did not specify what kinds he had in mind.
according to the link, what is actually said is that the Russians posture that development of an anti antimissile shield capable weapon system would have to be developed in response and used it as a threat to Washington regarding the continuation of the missile shield program but the report even says that this looks to be posturing by the Russians and probably not a real threat.
In my opinion the first real counter for the Russians would be to develop their own defense system and in the mean time draw up conventional weapon strike plans against key missile defense components (which there will be and there will have to be some in vulnerable places especially if the US goes for the new naval based option which would allow a limited strike especially. I further believe this to be the best course as i believe that any ICBM system that specifically counters the missile system would probably be banned under the replacement for the Start I treaty along with further nuclear disarmament and a limitation on defense shielddeployment
-
How do we give the peace prize to a man who's telling someone to make more weapons?
You didn't listen to his acceptance speech, did you? Go check it out.
-
It was an article I read earlier today that mentioned he had suggested Russia build more advanced missiles in response to our defense system, or something along those lines, but I couldn't find that article. This was the closest I got.
I haven't seen his speech, probably TL;DW.
-
Then you shouldn't be picking at his reception of the Peace Prize, because his speech was all about that dichotomy.
-
What does a speech after the award is given have to do with anything? You can talk all you want, actions speak louder than words though.
-
Because he didn't ask for the award, and the speech was about his actions.
Words explain the reasoning behind actions.
-
But don’t take his word for it, take ten minutes (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRWjTDaT4JuS0nFj9APZAues8vjAD9CGFID00) and read it for yourself.
-
The better question is what was the Nobel committee thinking giving a sitting wartime US President the peace prize... He didn't ask for the prize, the twerps on the committee gave it to him. I think he should have just turned it down, I understand why he didn't. I still think he should have. Read the speech, though.
As "liberal" as he is and some of us are, we are still fighting extensive ground actions on two fronts.
-
Right it's not a knock on Obama exactly, it's a knock on everyone who keeps kissing his ass like he's the second coming.
-
Didn't this happen after they gave him the award?
So I guess the question I have is "Is this really confusion or are we just rehashing the Peace Prize?"
-
Yeah it did. Not sure who is really being "knocked" here except the norwegians for being twerps. His speech says all the things even us who are dissatisfied have said about it.
If he's got to accept it for whatever political reason, he might as well do it with grace and eyes wide open. Read the speech.
-
Obama gets Peace Prize
Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan
Obama tells Russia to build more advanced missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8434260.stm)
Am I missing anything? I'm not a fan of Obama, but what do all you liberals make of this? I seriously want to know.
He's a fraud who cultivates a peaceful, charismatic image to distract from the fact that his policies are essentially the same as Bush during his second term. Does that answer your question?
-
He inherited the war from his predecessor; you can't blame Obama for it. All I hear now from the right is about Obama's war. OBAMA'S WAR!? BUSH STARTED THE DAMN THING, and Obama is doing what he can to end it.
As Obama said in his speech. war might be necessary to establish peace in the future.
-
Bush started the damn thing, and Obama is escalating it. How does Obama's Kool-aid taste? You seem to be enjoying it.
-
Yeah but people made the war such a big deal, like he was going to be able to handle it any differently than McCain. It wasn't a factor though, everyone knew the winner would be a wartime president for some time to come and yet everyone got wet over him about it. Why make the war such a big deal if neither side had any real decisions to make about it? It seems like some people actually thought he'd just pull us out of Afghanistan too. And, it's not like the committee didn't know Obama was going to have to send more troops to Afghanistan.
-
He campaigned on increasing troops in Afghanistan though. It's one of the reasons I voted him.
-
He campaigned on increasing troops in Afghanistan though. It's one of the reasons I voted him.
Ironically enough that increase and the adjustments in military tactics in the region could probably end the conflict sooner
-
Which is why I think the Nobel people still awarded it to him.
-
Sending more troops to Afghanistan won't work. NO-ONE ever wins in Afghanistan. People have been fighting over that stretch of land for 4,000 years, and no one has won. Ever. Personally, I think the effort is doomed to prolong our involvement over there. Then again, I'm not the one of the Joint Chiefs, so what do I know?
-
Sending more troops to Afghanistan won't work. NO-ONE ever wins in Afghanistan. People have been fighting over that stretch of land for 4,000 years, and no one has won. Ever. Personally, I think the effort is doomed to prolong our involvement over there. Then again, I'm not the one of the Joint Chiefs, so what do I know?
That is one of the classic blunders. The only way it could be worse would be if the enemy forces were made up of Sicilians.
-
Because, as in any war, DEATH is on the line!
-
That or if they decided to then march into Russian before winter.
-
Pacifism =/= Peace. Pacifism can be more dangerous to world peace sometimes. Ending conflicts sooner through force can cause long term peace. Not always the rule, but its a big grey area. I still think Richard Dawkins deserved the peace prize over Obama.
-
Google 2000AD + Apocalypse Warp
A Russian missile shield will end in tears.
-
Shouldn't Truman have gotten one then? I'm pretty sure he set the bar for ending conflicts sooner through force.
-
Shouldn't Truman have gotten one then? I'm pretty sure he set the bar for ending conflicts sooner through force.
That isn't the only part of it.