Rules for winning the Nobel peace prize

[Reaver]

Currently, Gitmo is in the process of being closed. Deadlines for it's complete cessation have been set to january. Don't take the Micheal Steele type arguement by saying "oh hey reconstruction jobs for the olympics are in 7 years. Jobs will not be created UNTIL that day." No, as we speak, the U.S. is negotiating with other countries about where to place them. The numbers in Gitmo are shrinking, simply because it's foreseeable closure. President Bush KNEW of the terrible reputation Gitmo carried, but still kept it open. President Obama saw this, and is shutting it down.

Obama has been open to peace talks more than any other recent president. He has strongly urged, and continues to urge for mideast peace talks. I mean come on trying to get Netanyahu and Abbas to peacefully discuss is no easy task my friend. 2 Opposites living as neighbors, it's hilarious. His urgency has come to fruition, Netanyahu has already told us exactly WHAT he is prepared to negotiate, and what is off the table. The same thing for Abbas.

Netanyahu is not prepared to discuss freezing expansion of jewish settlements. BUT, is prepared to discuss other inhibitory factors of peace in the middle east. This is just one example. It hasn't even been a year yet, and we've already seen progress.

Another example, did you NOT see the French's reaction when Obama was in Strasbourg? Google that shit, the French are waving American flags. Obama has, in less than one year, so changed the american foreign policy that other nations are waving our fucking flags. Does that not speak to you about his policy changes?

Unless Reaver you believe Obama is somehow tricking most UN nations. Why do you think Sarcozy is so eager to meet about diplomatic relations between the two? Why do you think Merkel is eager to discuss germany's role in afghanistan and discuss it's future? Let me tell you, BECAUSE Obama has laid out a plan of OPEN discussion of world problems, and through that plan they each have allowed more channels for discussion. An example of this, so far, (like i said it's only been 9 months maximum) is the worlds role in Afghanistan as well as fighting Terrorism.

I didn't even read all of this, but your point in the very beginning was that gitmo is in the process of being closed. That's great and all but my point remains that he has accomplished so little, too little to deserve the award.

And whether or not he inherited the past president's war's doesn't change the fact that he's in charge now and if he wants to pull troops out he can.

[Broly]

obama your peace prize was great, but hitler's nobel peace prize was teh best ever

hitler was only nominated, never won

[paradise!]

shutupparadiseyoumakeeverythingworse

someone needs a big HUG ^______^

[Squeezer]

shutupparadiseyoumakeeverythingworse

[paradise!]

The goal of those wars isn't to change ideology, it's to eradicate enemies. That is always possible, but like I said very costly. It would probably require hundreds of thousands of troops combing through the entire country and killing with impunity in order to stamp out terror cells/prospective terror cells. Even then, you may still need to just kill them all to make sure. Or perhaps cripple them and then set up a Marshall Plan-type deal to ensure there are no hard feelings. Like I said, very high price - in money and human lives.

Only fake wars like War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and to an extent the War on Terror are unwinnable because you can't end something that always, and probably necessarily, persists.

The goal is to fight terrorism. The enemy is Terrorism. Terrorists are people who believe in the ideas of Terrorism and we seek to terminate them. Which is ESSENTIALLY trying to destroy a system of beliefs. We aren't fighting the Taliban simply because they are supposed to be the enemy. But, when looking deeper, they ARE the enemy because of what they believe, not because of who they are (genocide).

Mattey is right.

EDIT: also, Afghanistan IS unwinnable. You cannot fight the Taliban in those mountains. It's not possible, ask the russians.

[Squeezer]

This is exactly what I disagree with. You can not bomb anti-american sentiment out of existance, the act of bombing creates more anti-american sentiment. What is wrong with everyone?

Really, because the Japanese toned down their anti-American sentiments pretty quickly after they got fucked by the fat man.

edit: I'm not saying its my preferred way, but its possible to make your opponent submit.

[Epinephrine]

This is exactly what I disagree with. You can not bomb anti-american sentiment out of existance, the act of bombing creates more anti-american sentiment. What is wrong with everyone?

While in a way you're right, for most intents and purposes the Romans knew a thing or two about winning wars for 1000 years.

Kill all the men, put all the women and children into slavery except for those that will listen to you.

Thing is we no longer accept such brutality, so we can't win wars anymore.

[Ilya]

yo i heard obama wasn't even born in america

[T3l Ca7]

[Fluffz]

This man already archived enough to deserve the price. I feel pitty for you if you can only see lies and intentions.

[Mattey]

All that he's saying is that there are ways to bomb an ideology out of existence,

This is exactly what I disagree with. You can not bomb anti-american sentiment out of existance, the act of bombing creates more anti-american sentiment. What is wrong with everyone?

[Squeezer]

I believe Sunny Tzu-Mi-In-But wrote about such strategies in "the art of boners" or some book like that.

[Squeezer]

The very act of trying to stamp out every terror-cell creates more terror cells. Killing with impunity creates more people with anti-american sentiment. How do you not see this?

He does, which is why he'll probably agree that both wars are fruitless.

All that he's saying is that there are ways to bomb an ideology out of existence, or at least to a point where people will choose the alternative rather than being murdered. See Germany, who still fought bitterly for Nazism, while Russians and Americans were crossing the Rhine together and then a couple of years later when they were eager to accept greenbacks from General Marshall so they didn't starve. If you own your enemy and their only means of getting resources, you can control their tendencies.

[Mattey]

The goal of those wars isn't to change ideology, it's to eradicate enemies. That is always possible, but like I said very costly. It would probably require hundreds of thousands of troops combing through the entire country and killing with impunity in order to stamp out terror cells/prospective terror cells. Even then, you may still need to just kill them all to make sure. Or perhaps cripple them and then set up a Marshall Plan-type deal to ensure there are no hard feelings. Like I said, very high price - in money and human lives.

The very act of trying to stamp out every terror-cell creates more terror cells. Killing with impunity creates more people with anti-american sentiment. How do you not see this?

[genocidal]

The goal of those wars isn't to change ideology, it's to eradicate enemies. That is always possible, but like I said very costly. It would probably require hundreds of thousands of troops combing through the entire country and killing with impunity in order to stamp out terror cells/prospective terror cells. Even then, you may still need to just kill them all to make sure. Or perhaps cripple them and then set up a Marshall Plan-type deal to ensure there are no hard feelings. Like I said, very high price - in money and human lives.

Only fake wars like War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and to an extent the War on Terror are unwinnable because you can't end something that always, and probably necessarily, persists.