chemical-licker Posted December 10, 2009 #1 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize days after sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan Barack Obama was today awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize – just nine days after pledging to send 30,000 more US troops into war in Afghanistan. In his acceptance speech, the President acknowledged the ‘hard truth’ that violent conflict won’t be eradicated ‘in our lifetimes’, and appealed to the international community to help him ‘reach for the world that ought to be.’ Of the controversy surrounding his prize, Obama reminded the audience he was ‘only at the start of my labours on the world stage.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234704/Its-little-early-says-Dalai-Lama-Barack-Obama-prepares-accept-Nobel-Peace-Prize-year-office.html#ixzz0ZIkE4ZHU Am i getting this right? to get peace you must fight? chemical_licker has licked to many bleach stains, I just don't get it:no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted December 10, 2009 #2 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Am i getting this right? to get peace you must fight? Yep. Pretty much. chemical_licker has licked to many bleach stains, I just don't get it:no: Well, it's pretty straight-forward. You live in peace. Then someone comes along and breaks that peace. Then you fight them till they leave. Then you rebuild the peace. Then you start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chemical-licker Posted December 10, 2009 Author #3 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Yep. Pretty much. Well, it's pretty straight-forward. You live in peace. Then someone comes along and breaks that peace. Then you fight them till they leave. Then you rebuild the peace. Then you start over. So I build a house and just knock it down to rebuild it up again:unsure2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted December 10, 2009 #4 Share Posted December 10, 2009 So I build a house and just knock it down to rebuild it up again:unsure2: Not quite. You build a house. Someone else comes and knocks it down. You fight that person. Now, the next time you build a house, this person has to consider that, if he knocks it down, he is going to get hurt again. Peace. Peace violated. Violator fought. Violator doesn't break peace anymore. Peace renewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted December 10, 2009 #5 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Not quite. You build a house. Someone else comes and knocks it down. You fight that person. Now, the next time you build a house, this person has to consider that, if he knocks it down, he is going to get hurt again. Peace. Peace violated. Violator fought. Violator doesn't break peace anymore. Peace renewed. I understand your analogy aquatus, but I wanted to ask what if the person who knocked down your house did it for some strongly held belief or principle and knew that getting hurt in the process was an acceptable risk? How does one reach a peaceful conclusion in such a case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted December 10, 2009 #6 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I understand your analogy aquatus, but I wanted to ask what if the person who knocked down your house did it for some strongly held belief or principle and knew that getting hurt in the process was an acceptable risk? How does one reach a peaceful conclusion in such a case? A peaceful conclusion? You can't reach a peaceful conclusion once the fight has begun. Once the peace has been broken, your options are limited. You can either fight until you are both so utterly exhausted that you are willing to make peace, or you can fight until one decides that it just isn't worth fighting anymore, or you can fight till the opponent is no longer a danger. No, the time for peace is before the fighting. Once the fight begins, it needs to be fast, brutal, and decisive. There can be absolutely no doubt in the minds of the opponents that breaking peace carries too high a body count to be worthwhile. If they are not the type who care about such things, then they will continue to fight until either they, or you, are no longer a danger. Sometimes, peace is not an option. Sometimes, tolerance will not work. The history of the world is replete with examples of incompatibility, and in the overwhelmingly majority of these cases, the only time that peace was achieved was after the fighting was over, and usually, it was not due to both parties finding a peaceful solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted December 10, 2009 #7 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Invaders steal your resources, murder your women/children and build a house on the land. Nobel awards a Peace prize to the invader. ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadetak Posted December 10, 2009 #8 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Invaders steal your resources, murder your women/children and build a house on the land. Nobel awards a Peace prize to the invader. ........... You don't need any qualifications or any real achievements to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel committee just votes for you and you win. The other Nobel prizes are not handed out so lightly however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamblingRebel Posted December 10, 2009 #9 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Not quite. You build a house. Someone else comes and knocks it down. You fight that person. Now, the next time you build a house, this person has to consider that, if he knocks it down, he is going to get hurt again. Peace. Peace violated. Violator fought. Violator doesn't break peace anymore. Peace renewed. Erm...Forgive my ignorance...but how exactly were Afghanistan and/or Iraq involved in 'knocking our houses down' again? I was under the impression them baddies that stole them planes, (according to offical accounts anyway) were Arabs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted December 10, 2009 #10 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Erm...Forgive my ignorance...but how exactly were Afghanistan and/or Iraq involved in 'knocking our houses down' again? I was under the impression them baddies that stole them planes, (according to offical accounts anyway) were Arabs! I don't believe I ever mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamblingRebel Posted December 11, 2009 #11 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I don't believe I ever mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq. Well you did say: Well, it's pretty straight-forward. You live in peace. Then someone comes along and breaks that peace. Then you fight them till they leave. Then you rebuild the peace. Then you start over. By my reckoning, (considering this thread is about Obama accepting a peace prize, while at the same time sending even more troops to war), the peace was broken when 9/11 happened, leading to invasions of countries that had no involvment in that plot. What other countries could you have been refering to considering the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted December 11, 2009 #12 Share Posted December 11, 2009 By my reckoning, (considering this thread is about Obama accepting a peace prize, while at the same time sending even more troops to war), the peace was broken when 9/11 happened, leading to invasions of countries that had no involvment in that plot. What other countries could you have been refering to considering the topic? I wasn't referring to any countries. I was directly answering the OP's question. His question didn't specify any country. He just wanted to know how one could reconcile fighting with peace. Perhaps you think there aren't enough threads talking about politics and war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 11, 2009 #13 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You don't need any qualifications or any real achievements to win the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel committee just votes for you and you win. The other Nobel prizes are not handed out so lightly however. Everyone wants a holiday-house somewhere on Canary islands! Would you yourself refuse? I probably won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted December 11, 2009 #14 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize days after sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan Barack Obama was today awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize – just nine days after pledging to send 30,000 more US troops into war in Afghanistan. In his acceptance speech, the President acknowledged the ‘hard truth’ that violent conflict won’t be eradicated ‘in our lifetimes’, and appealed to the international community to help him ‘reach for the world that ought to be.’ Of the controversy surrounding his prize, Obama reminded the audience he was ‘only at the start of my labours on the world stage.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234704/Its-little-early-says-Dalai-Lama-Barack-Obama-prepares-accept-Nobel-Peace-Prize-year-office.html#ixzz0ZIkE4ZHU Am i getting this right? to get peace you must fight? chemical_licker has licked to many bleach stains, I just don't get it:no: Chemical-licker, it seems that to get the Nobel Peace Prize, one must NOT fight; one must have a good public image as a Peace-Maker. That is the opinion of the good folks who make up The Norwegian Nobel Committee.Now, one may agree or one may disagree with their sentiment, but since they give the award, they have the right to decide the rules. That said, nobody can argue that Obama hasn't got charisma, and is good at talking peace. Announcement The Norwegian Nobel Committee The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened. Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population. For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." Oslo, October 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 11, 2009 #15 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Whoops! It came up non politically correct. ... Edited December 11, 2009 by marabod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkDwarf Posted December 11, 2009 #16 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Peace is only achievable if you take humanity out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted December 11, 2009 #17 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I understand your analogy aquatus, but I wanted to ask what if the person who knocked down your house did it for some strongly held belief or principle and knew that getting hurt in the process was an acceptable risk? How does one reach a peaceful conclusion in such a case? Then you terminate the person or play russian roulette the rest of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted December 11, 2009 #18 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Text of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRWjTDaT4JuS0nFj9APZAues8vjAD9CGFID00 ... Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. ... I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. Wow... just read Obama's speech... the whole speech is about preemptive war and its relation or 'justification' for peace. The speech reminded me of this: George Orwell's 1984: War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength... Edited December 11, 2009 by acidhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted December 11, 2009 #19 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) Wow... just read Obama's speech... the whole speech is about preemptive war and its relation or 'justification' for peace. The speech reminded me of this: Where did the political LEFT go? Its clear Obama is no different than Bush. Despite his dropping approval ratings many will vemonately defend Obama by saying, "Well at least he isn't as bad as Bush!" and stomp their foot.... many also say this with a quiche eating grin and a balsamic smile while the economy is tanking. LOL... thats like saying, "Mussolini wasn't as bad as Hitler!" Does anybody recognize the trance/spell many are under? Where did the peace-loving anti-Bush crowd go? Its freakin amazing... Edited December 11, 2009 by acidhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbarosso Posted December 12, 2009 #20 Share Posted December 12, 2009 correct me if i am wrong, but if cops cant receive monetary gifts then why can our president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetrodoxly Posted December 12, 2009 #21 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Nothing against Norway (i don't know a lot about it) but how can anyone be impressed by a price awarded by a small group of Norwegians? i don't think the Norwegian "committee" were influenced by Obama, it's his worshipers and what they though he was going to do rather than what he's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now