Bingo.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter tosugrad
- Start date
Bingo.
while i feel much as you re these things, i can't help but feel we're on something of a fool's errand.
it's gonna be a lonnnng slog.
Let me just state that I am not anti-military, nor am I for the Taliban or governments with brutal dictators. But come on.... Let's not be dishonest. We do what we do because we believe it to be right. That "rightness", allows us to kill people for it, just like the Taliban or an Al-Queda member thinks HE is "right". We are all killing people is the bottom line, I am not getting into the right or wrong of it, which is what you want to do. Perhaps you are not aware of the figures? It is difficult to say "Sir, here is your deserved Nobel peace prize for coming into a country with your guns and bombs and killing bad people".
To me peace should be about peace, and the rest should be seperate. No one wants to see the Taliban go and women to have freedom more than me. No one values the sacrifice that an 18 year old kid makes because we put him in this shit-ass position with no proper support sometimes, more than me. If I had a gun in my hand, and had to protect a woman or a child against a life of misery by a Taliban fighter, I may use it. But I tell you what I wouldn't do... I wouldn't call myself a peacekeeper. This is dirty, it is nasty, it is bloody. Whether it should be done or not falls on a political divide with people on both sides. My post was not about that. My post was about calling things as they are, not making something into what it isn't just because you and I think we are right. IMO, you cannot hand the peace prize over to anyone that has picked up a gun. You just can't. Maybe that person should get a different prize, but I wouldn't call it a peace prize. That kind of peace prize may then have little or no value to you, but at least we are being honest.
If you kill those that make war on the innocent, you end up with......PEACE!
Peace sometimes requires killing first.
Peace sometimes requires killing first.
We are going way OT BUT - I think you are looking at the mission in Afghanistan will rose colored american glasses. We could be there for another 100 years and NOTHING will change. I repeat IMHO the mission in Afghanistan is not going to stabilize the country. All I care about is getting OBL and #2 and getting the F**K out of there.
Yes, most people/countries/governments that kill feel this way.
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
"...And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it."
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
"...And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it."
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
That's because they are right.
Maybe you have discovered a new way to stop those committing murder/genocide, etc.
Not to flame here, but I wonder what gives you authority to claim what is the "Bottom line".
By applying your logic, wherein all deaths are essentially equivalent, and all motives are held to be equivalent because every person who kills is doing what he thinks it's "right", we end up with a logical extrapolation that our actions and Hitler's actions in WWII were morally equivalent.
Again, by imposing your metric of what constitutes the bottom line, both a cop who may accidentally shoot a bystander in a shootout is as morally culpable as the criminal initiating the shootout in the first place.
I am afraid we cannot separate the action from the right or wrong of it. The right or wrong of it matters more than anything.
It would seem to me that intent is the true bottom line in these types of matters, and in fact intent is exactly the main consideration that all civilized courts use as a metric of guilt.
Maybe they will grow out of it like America did (to the slaves and Native Americans).
Just because American likes to forget its past.....the rest of the world has not and they hate the double standard. But don't worry Rome fell because it over extended itself too with needless wars and stupid citizenry as well.
Rome only survived because of wars of conquest and tribute paid to Rome by the conquered territories.
The United States, regardless of the questionable wisdom of entering the wars it has or its past sins, is in no way equitable to ancient Rome, either in actions foreign or domestic.
Only a nation with nothing to lose needs not an army to defend them. An army with a known capacity to kill can logically be required for peace in certain situations. Human nature cannot be broken; one's will for complete harmony among men will only occur when he is the last man.
The key for sustainable peace has and always will be based on the incentive structure. If it's in a nation's best interest to avoid conflict, it will. It is feasible that it could be in all nations' best interests to avoid conflicts amongst each other-then and only then will you have peace; which I would more accurately describe as a lack of war.
The key for sustainable peace has and always will be based on the incentive structure. If it's in a nation's best interest to avoid conflict, it will. It is feasible that it could be in all nations' best interests to avoid conflicts amongst each other-then and only then will you have peace; which I would more accurately describe as a lack of war.
I hope the rest of the world does not forgot their own past atrocities before judging ours. In fact, there is reason to argue both Europe, Africa and Asia have both been home to perhaps the greatest reckless destruction of human life probably during all human existence. These also took place long after the natives and slaves were issues in the United States.
The U.S. is currently commencing one of the last requirements to destroy a superpower, allowing the uneducated masses, through democracy, access to the treasury at their own demise. While history often repeats itself, rarely are all the variables the same.
Last edited:
Yes, I believe that the pure action of a German soldier killing a Russian soldier or a British soldier, and they killing the German soldier or a Japanese soldier is the same. It is killing. Both parties always believe they are right. So being "right" is a justification one can often use for killing, but being right is never black and white, and throughout history you can find cases where what looked right at the time was not so, and vice versa. One has to be very careful before he uses the "we will kill because we are right" reason for killing. Many religious groups have engaged in killing because they thought they were right. Were they right? We killed a lot of vietnamese because we believed we were right. We killed slaves at times because we thought we were right. This always continues. It is a slippery slope.
Are there times when one must kill? Perhaps... I am not sure I am the authority on this, and this is a different issue you bring up. This was not my point.
My point was a simpler one: That to equate killing with the "peace" prize is a stretch. We may have differing opinions on whether one should kill or not and if so, under what circumstances (or you and I may not differ at all), but this is a much deeper issue you bring up, a much deeper question and a problem of humanity in general.
Last edited:
You are arguing in support of moral relativism. In essence you are claiming that there is no position extant that can be considered "Right", or that all points of view have equal validity.
Beyond that, you incorrectly try to remove actions from their context, when context is everything in determining the relative moralities of various human actions.
Good luck with that notion.
I of course reject it, believing as I do that a basic universal Human understanding of what we can call "Good" and "evil" exists and generally presents an understandable and acceptable motivation for what might otherwise be considered "bad" actions taken out of their context.
By extension of your logic, giving a child an inoculation against Swine flue is morally equivalent to stabbing them with a needle because one likes to hurt children.
Both actions result, when the intention behind them is removed as context, in a child being stabbed with a needle and suffering. A sophisticated understanding would conclude however, that in one case the harm is intended to forestall greater harm later.
Likewise, prosecuting war may well stem from the desire to prevent greater conflict later.
Russ, I really am not understanding what you are trying to say. Everyone thinks they are right. Even the Al-Queda fighter. He sees himself as some sort of freedom fighter, fighting the only way he knows how against what he considers a more powerful and oppressive enemy. Millions of poeple were killed for communism, because it was an idealogy believed to be right. It was all done for the greater good, for being in the right, for future peace. During the crusades people who called themselves Christians killed thousands of people because they too, thought they are right. All of human history is of fighting and warfare, and all parties always believe that they are right. Even within the SAME person, being "right" on an action is subject to change. Many people regret things they have done later, but at the time they believed it to be right. So you see, this "context" is a very subjective thing.
Now all this is good and fine, "normal" if you will, a continuation of humanity's problem that has existed forever, and not the point of my post. My point was saying "we will give you the peace medal because your killing helps provide future peace" is taking this yet another step further, and I was saying that is a stretch.
I don't think you or I will reach any sort of conclusion about whether it is "OK" to kill when you are "right". I prefer not to speak endlessly about this because in some secnarios we will agree, and in some we may not. As I said earlier, the question of killing is a very difficult thing for me to get around myself. Killing is really a nasty thing. By marginalizing the other person, or saying they are wrong and you are right, it makes that horrendous act of violence easier, and we have to be careful of this. You may think I am arguing against you, but I am not... You and I, in the same situation, may do the exact same thing. I too, may pull the triger just as you would when faced with a particular scenario. But if you and I decide to kill another human being, for whatever reason, let us not be hypocrits and call what we just did "peace". The nobel peace prize should be reserved for PEACEFUL actions, not for killing in the hopes of some future peace. If you disagree with this basic premise it is OK, I respect that, it just isn't my way of looking at things.
Last edited:
I agree that claims of "right" -ness are often used to justify killing in often transparently cynical attempts to justify actions that are clearly wrong.
That does nothing to mitigate the fact that in some cases, there are legitimate "right" reasons for killing.
The right of self preservation in employing violence against those making direct threats to the life of one's family or self is self evident logic for example.
As to what the Nobel peace prize is meant to be for, I humbly suggest that the Nobel peace prize committee is the only valid arbiter. According to the standards that Alfred Nobel himself set forth, an argument can certainly be made that Obama has met them...
Although in this case I think that the prize committee was using the peace prize as a political statement of its pleasure in the paradigm shift that Obama represents more than any specific actions he has taken.
Keep in mind that Obama is hardly the first laureate who has ordered violence against other humans in the name of peace. Kofi Anon, Yasser Aarafat, Henry Kissenger, Mikhail Gorbechev...all commanded or oversaw violence against others on a massive and organized scale.
It's not that I think that Obama does or does not deserve the prize, it's just that it is not my prize to decide on.
Last edited:
Are you referring to THIS quote? :biggrin:
"A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover that they can vote for them selves largess of the public treasury with a result that democracy always fails under loose fiscal policy and is generally followed by dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years for a nation to progress to a sequence from bondage to spiritual faith, spiritual faith to great courage, great courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to selfishness, selfishness to complacency, complacency to apathy, apathy to dependence. And from dependence back again into bond age"
I think my point is being lost. All those people... all those people that have carried on killing, have always thought they are right. It is never very clear cut, it is always gray. A personal one-on-one situation, you and robber, you as a soldier and an enemy soldier, is very different than organized group killing. War is mass killing. The idea of "right" becomes even more gray when a group of people identify with it than when a single person in a situation does. I don't doubt that many people would say you were justified in pulling a trigger when a thief was in your home at night with a gun to your face. But that is quite different than sending a bomber to another country and doing blanket bombing. I am speaking of this philosophicaly, I am not putting my finger on any particular nation or war. I am only trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, because I want to hear your thoughts as well. Do you not agree that organized killing via an army is far more gray than a one-on-one situation? and one-on-one killings are but an absolutely tiny fraction of mass killing throughout history? 200 million human beings have been killed in the past 100 years by other humans. Think about that number. It is quite disturbing. And most of it was done by people who all believed themselves to be "right" and the others wrong. That "we" combined with the concept of being right, is quite a dangerous combination.
Last edited:
I totally figured I'd see this as this thread got so long. That's it threads over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Sorry Turbo, but it doesn't get much more black and white than the German soldier vs the British soldier in WWII. I don't mean to be insulting here, but if one is not able to see this, they are suffering from a deep, deep lack of moral clarity.
- Joined
- 22 October 2009
- Messages
- 19
I think we've killed over 1,000,000 Iraqis faster than Saddam ever could. There's hundreds of countries with much more atrocious things going on than Iraq, yet the US uses "freedom-insert-noble-cause-here" excuse to invade another country. It would have been a lot cheaper to save lives and impose freedom in other countries yet we don't, so the only logical reason is that were there for another purpose.
Maybe it's a behind-the-curtain type of reason, like Saddam was going to price his oil in a different currency or who knows. We do know that WMD's were a lie and they don't even have ICBM's, another war started on a LIE, just like the Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" and Vietnam. It's like if China invaded the US to give us free-health care and fiber-optic internet access, except in the process they bombarded the country and killed 10% of all Americans, yep, I'm sure that wouldn't spawn any hatred towards China nor generate terrorists.
Look, I voted for Bush twice and I got double the size of government, two pointless wars, corporate welfare, ethanol corn subsidies, expansion of medicare, the "Patriot" act that destroys the constitution. FEMA disaster. Now we have a new guy Obama who's doing the exact same thing, doubling the forces in Afghanistan, continuing both wars, bailing out the exact same banks that McCain wanted to bail out, more corporate welfare, trillions given to foreign banks (FED), GM, indefinite detention, etc etc.
Now I don't see any difference, it's like 2 corrupt CEO's of the same company, both parties are bought and paid for at the highest levels.
Obama getting his peace prize, well I sure wouldn't give him one. Fighting two wars and getting the peace prize.. Makes absolutely no sense.. Might as well give him the Nobel Peace prize for Physics, Chemistry and Physiology while they're at it.
Here's the only good thing out of it... Now that he just received the prize, he's going to look really dumb if he sends those 40k-80k troops in that General Mc Crystal is requesting so the US can protect that opium and weed.
Last edited:
My moral compass works fine. You are speaking of the right and wrong again. I was not.
Last edited:
Similar threads
