How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Well that's all right then   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Well that's all right then

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


25 posted 05-03-2011 05:40 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"that I don't take joy in his death?"


My Polish parents took joy in the death of Hitler.
Of course he murdered millions . . .


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


26 posted 05-03-2011 06:07 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Of course he murdered millions . . .

And probably took the same joy in those deaths others would later take in his.

I've done many things in my life I wished I didn't have to do. I did them nonetheless, and most days I can look in the mirror with very few regrets. The day I take pleasure in hurting someone is the day all that will change for me. That's simply not a path I want to follow, John.

Killing monsters is a necessary evil. That it is necessary makes it no less evil.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 05-03-2011 06:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I just don't see any reason someone would expect Bush to get credit for Obama's luck?

True enough. When Obama stands up and says, "I got Osama because I got lucky", we will be in complete agreement.

The day I take pleasure in hurting someone is the day all that will change for me.

Absolutely I agree. That's why I (and the others, I'm sure) say we have no desire to celebrate the event. I don't applaud when I kill a bug, either, although some of my customers do   . It's a job that must be done.

We live in a world where a quarterback sack causes a player to jump up, throw his fists in the air, scream defiantly at the fallen player and walk around, beating his chest with his hands to the wild frenzy of the fans.......and all for doing exactly what he gets paid to do. Can't you imagine Bronco Nagurski or some of the old timers looking at those antics and just shaking their heads?? It's all show these days...and that's a little sad to me.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


28 posted 05-03-2011 06:55 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"I take pleasure in hurting someone is the day all that will change for me"


Not someone Ron; a monster.

It is one thing to go armed; it's another to
live years helplessly in the eye of a beast
intent on slaughter.  As it is we will rely
on others who are willing to be scarred
in our favor.
.


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 05-03-2011 07:09 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
True enough. When Obama stands up and says, "I got Osama because I got lucky", we will be in complete agreement.

Not quite complete agreement, Mike. Not until Bush stands up and makes a few admissions of his own.

I don't think either of us are going to hold our breaths?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 05-03-2011 07:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You got dat right
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 05-04-2011 03:36 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Former President George W. Bush has turned down President Barack Obama’s invitation to join him at ground zero on Thursday, citing his desire to avoid the media glare.

“President Bush appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight,” Bush spokesman David Sherzer told POLITICO in an email Tuesday night. “He continues to celebrate with all Americans this important victory in the war on terror.”

Obama — who has sharply criticized Bush for neglecting the hunt for bin Laden by invading Iraq — made the offer to Bush shortly after he decided on his New York trip, according to two people familiar with the situation.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/no_thanks_578d0b74-d901-469e-afa6-b3ab9fe13f42.html

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


32 posted 05-04-2011 06:08 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks, L.R. That's nice to hear.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


33 posted 05-04-2011 01:25 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“President George W. Bush, not his successor, constructed the interrogation and warrantless surveillance programs that produced this week's actionable intelligence. For this, congressional Democrats and media pundits pilloried him for allegedly exceeding his presidential powers and violating the Bill of Rights.

As a candidate in 2008, then-Sen. Obama held Mr. Bush and Sen. John McCain "responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States." These decisions, he said, allowed bin Laden and his circle to establish "a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world."

Upon taking office, Mr. Obama tried to fulfill the dreams of the antiwar left. In January 2009, he signed executive orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and limit the CIA to U.S. military interrogation methods. He made it clear that al Qaeda leaders would be tried in civilian courts. And in August 2009, his attorney general, Eric Holder, launched a criminal investigation into CIA officers who had interrogated al Qaeda leaders.

Imagine what would have happened if the Obama administration had been running things immediately following 9/11. After their "arrest," we would have read KSM and al-Libi their Miranda rights, provided them legal counsel, sent them to the U.S. for detention, and granted them all the rights provided a U.S. citizen in criminal proceedings.
If this had happened, the CIA could not have built the intelligence mosaic that pinpointed bin Laden's location. Without the intelligence produced by Bush policies, the SEAL helicopters would be idling their engines at their Afghanistan base even now. In the war on terror, it is easy to pull the trigger—it is hard to figure out where to aim . . .

“Mr. Obama's policies now differ from their Bush counterparts mainly on the issue of interrogation. As Sunday's operation put so vividly on display, Mr. Obama would rather kill al Qaeda leaders—whether by drones or special ops teams—than wade through the difficult questions raised by their detention. This may have dissuaded Mr. Obama from sending a more robust force to attempt a capture. . .

White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday that the SEAL team had orders to take bin Laden alive, "if he didn't present any threat," though he correctly dismissed this possibility as "remote." This is hard to take seriously. No one could have expected bin Laden to surrender without a fight. And capturing him alive would have required the administration to hold and interrogate bin Laden at Guantanamo Bay, something that has given this president allergic reactions bordering on a seizure. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870383480457630103259552737   2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop


The increase in drone attacks already showed
that somebody doesn't have a problem killing
without trial.  
.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


34 posted 05-04-2011 03:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Published: July 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

quote:

On June 2, 2009: President Obama signed a memo to CIA Director Leon Panetta stating "in order to ensure that we have expanded every effort, I direct you to provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/05/report-osama-bin-laden-is-dead/1

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


35 posted 05-04-2011 07:27 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Osama Bin Ladin is dead.  So are almost 3,000 folks in the twin towers in New York City, I don’t know how many people in Washington, and the folks on the briefly surviving flight that went down under hideous circumstances in Pennsylvania.  I have no idea how to tabulate the casualties among responders and the citizens of New York City and the nearly areas from direct and secondary effects of the blast and demolition and cleanup.

     In a first draft of this commentary, I wrote about the damage done — we ourselves have done — to our civil rights and our constitution as a result.  I was forced to cut that segment.  If we are lucky, we can perhaps repair some portion of that damage.  I have hopes.

     IIn the meantime, I think that most of the damage that Mr. Bin Ladin did to us was out of religious conviction that I don’t agree with, but which  should be familiar to us from a close examination of our own fanatics.  There are Jewish fanatics who are perfectly willing to assassinate muslims and to provoke extremely difficult situations, just as there are Christian fanatics who are happy to provoke martyrdom in Communist countries and occasionally in Muslim countries as well.  We tend to be somewhat more forgiving of these folks — I know I am..  Humans tend to divide their belief systems up somewhat rigidly.  I don’t count myself out of this.  Mr. Bin Ladin earned my dislike many times over.

     But then, I’m not seriously pleased  with casualties cased by the United States and our friends in Iraq, either.  You can pick our own sources for statistics, but when you look at what we inflicted in the Iraqis in the Gulf War Redux, they didn’t start it, and we inflicted a humongous number of casualties on them while wrecking and looting their country for no discernible reason.

     Some casualty reports go as high as half a million.  

     Mr. Bin Ladin actually got us to make his case for him in a good part of the world..  We may have smart bombs, but we’re even better at putting the laser sights on our own feet.  We poison our own wells not only abroad,. but here at home as well, though that’s another story.   One thing that Mr. Bin Ladin excelled at was in knowing how to get us started.  He was very good at that.

     The question has come up about who should have credit for Mr. Bin Ladin’s death.  It appears that there are two schools of thought represented.  One says that President Bush should have the credit.  The other says that President Obama should have the credit.

     Myself, I think that credit is not something that should be sought in something like this.  I nice trial and a long confinement in a prison with a good old American rainbow coalition of felons would have seemed the best thing for me.  Muslims, Jews, Christians, atheists all living together in an uproar of loathing would have been an interesting solution to the Osama Bin Laden issue.  That’s what I said to everybody when they all came to me and asked, of course; but when does my government ever listen to me?

     In case the attempt at wit didn’t come across there, that was an attempt at a joke.  Sometimes they actually make people laugh.

     I’d say that both of them should get something.  For President Bush, Osama was the gift that never stopped giving.  Every time he wanted to centralize power a bit more, cut back a bit more on civil rights, repeal another constitutional protection, there was Osama, a convenient reason for lawmakers to point to.  The problem was that Osama wasn’t really all that terrible an enemy.  He wasn’t a country.  So when it looked as though we might be coming close to capturing him, it was time to turn our attentions elsewhere, say to Iraq, where we might be certain never to run the danger of finding Osama at all, and where we could make up all sorts of fantasies to draw things out, and where we could downplay the importance of Osama, who might not prove all that hard to locate and eliminate should we put our minds to it.

     No wonder President Bush hardly thought about him any more, and apparently hoped nobody else did either.  If we found him, the frenzy for war might abate.

     And no wonder President Obama was so interested in finding the man, and putting pressure on to do so.  Eliminate the man and a lot of the hysteria for war might subside.  There might be some money and energy left for a democratic agenda.

     So no wonder President Bush didn't want to appear on a platform with President Obama to join hands over a job well done.  I suspect there were two different jobs here, and the end of one job would be somewhat bitter, and the beginning of the other might be somewhat hopeful.  Of course, I'm a paranoid liberal.  There are probably other reasons why one President thought Osama was unimportant and disbanded the CIA section that was searching for him, and why another thought he was vital and put resources into the project.  No doubt simpler and covering all the bases.  

     And no wonder it would be better to have Osama turn up dead.  President Obama has never been particularly enamored of political trials.  Apparently he feels they’re divisive or some such, and he wants some Republican support.  Lotssa luck on that one, by the way.

     My guess is that Osama in the end had it his way.  He went out like a whopper.  Shot by Americans, he got to be a Martyr, and the beat goes on.

     I don’t think anybody comes out of the affair covered with sparkly angel glitter stuff, myself, but that’s only my opinion.

      
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


36 posted 05-06-2011 07:01 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


So under Bush you bring ‘em back for interrogation,
under Obama you bring ‘em back in a bag;
under Bush you put water up their nose
under Obama you put a bullet in their head

It was fun to listen to the Left circle wagons
around that Peace Prize as to what is now
being generally conceded as a hit.  


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 05-07-2011 05:17 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



      

quote:

So under Bush you bring ‘em back for interrogation,
under Obama you bring ‘em back in a bag;
under Bush you put water up their nose
under Obama you put a bullet in their head




     In some ways, yes, if you want to generalize enough to make blue sound like green and yellow sound like Pontiacs.  If you’d care to pin down exactly what you’re talking about, I could probably give you a better response, though.  

     For example, “I” didn’t do any of this stuff.  Unless “you” are considerably more active in military affairs and in covert operations, forgive me for assuming “you” didn’t either.  Not bring ‘em back for interrogation, not put water up their noses, and not bring any of them back in bags.  Forgive me for saying so, but the Right wing has been very much in favor of all these things the whole time, the bringing back for interrogation, the water-boarding and the bringing folks back in bags.  Near as I can tell, the Right Wing is still in favor of all these things, though more in favor if a Right Wing Government is doing them.

     I thought they were wrong when they were done by The Right Wing and wrong now, when they are done under the leadership of President Obama.  They ate away at civil rights and the rule of law under the Bush administration, and, in fact, under any and every administration that has countenanced such actions, including any Democratic administrations that have done so.  If anybody expects me to defend such actions, they are mistaken.  They were disgusting during the Republican administrations under Reagan and Bush Senior and Bush Minimus, and I don’t like them now.  I find murder and torture disgusting more or less across the board, and I believe that the distain that we once held the Nazis who spoke of “just following orders” was justified after World War II and is equally justified now.  I believe that Those who give the orders should be brought to trial for war crimes.  That includes those people in our government who have done so, Republican and Democrat alike.

     “My country Right or Wrong” sounds no better to me in English than it does in Russian or German or Chinese or Arabic.

quote:


It was fun to listen to the Left circle wagons
around that Peace Prize as to what is now
being generally conceded as a hit.  



     The first part of the sentence does not connect to the second part of the sentence.  “As to what” somehow suggests that the events of recent weeks happened at the same time the Peace Prize was awarded instead of two years later.  The Right Wing sometimes has trouble with sequence and time lines, and this appears to be one of those times.

     That being said, The Bin Ladin affair, or this latest iteration of the Bin Ladin affair, sure seems like a hit to me.  I don’t like the notion of a hit, but politically, it is not against U.S. law because Bin Ladin is not the head of a foreign government.  I am against it on personal moral grounds.  An arrest would have been better, but highly unlikely, since Bin Ladin would have preferred death, and would have tried to find a way to die during an attempt  to arrest him anyway.  Martyrdom is very appealing to some folks.

     Perhaps I would find the objections to the death of bin Ladin on the part of some of the spokespersons for the right a bit more convincing if they had made such objections before the event rather than after.  I would say the same about myself here, to be fair.  I’d feel better about myself if I’d have said I wanted the man captured alive before his death.  The statement that I’d rather he’d have been captured alive, coming as it does, after his death, sounds a bit weak even to my own ears.  I have to live with the same flaw in myself that I’ve noted in my friends on the right.

     The reason that President Obama seems to have gotten that Peace Prize was that, near as I can tell, he wasn’t President Bush, and that the world wanted to let him know how much hope they were placing in his Presidency.

     I have lots of reasons to be upset in President Obama, and I’ve aired a lot of them in these pages at one point or another.  I don’t anticipate that I’ll be changing that.  I do not regret for one moment that he is not President Bush.  Nor do I regret that he has in some ways managed to  modify some of those programs.  Nor do I expect that the world would either.

     I think President Obama has pretty much earned that Peace Prize, though I don’t like a lot of his foreign policy, and I’d sure like a lot of his policies to have been considerably more peaceful than they’ve proven to be.  

     Nor do I see any sparkly glitter stuff suddenly appearing to be spread over anybody.  Just a bunch of policies that seem sort of mildly right of center in what was once a saner era.  Rockefeller Republicans, really, that now seem almost like communists to the folks that have taken over the wreckage that remains of what was once a fairly reasonable and inclusive and, dare I say it, noble political party.

     Not one I agreed with, but one that was decent as granite, and as solid.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 05-07-2011 07:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think President Obama has pretty much earned that Peace Prize, though I don’t like a lot of his foreign policy

You have outdone yourself once again, Bob.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


39 posted 05-07-2011 11:00 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Obama killed Osama and we got 72 versions!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


40 posted 05-07-2011 01:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Surely you meant to make a comment about the subject I was trying to address but simply forgot to make it clear enough for me to give you a response..  I would like to respond to a comment about the subject.  I have heard this particular comment addressed to me instead of comments addressed to subjects I've tried to address often enough to feel that it was time to point this out.

     Was it my dissatisfaction with President Obama that was bothersome, or the fact that I was upset with President Obama for the same reason that I was upset with various Republican Presidents that you found bothersome?  My condemnation of torture by everybody?  My pointing out that the right wing seems to have no problem with the behavior of President Obama when it's the behavior of a Republican President?  And that they even tend to encourage it in those cases, while I dislike and condemn it in both?  I didn't like it when Kennedy did it with the Brother Diem or with Castro, either.  It produced martyrs and tends to backfire, simply on a pragmatic level; it has other effects on a moral level that I think are worse, but which people can certainly offer a pragmatic argument against that's difficult to refute on purely pragmatic terms.

     My comment that I dislike homicide as an element of national policy when President Obama does it, even though, in the case of Osama Bin Ladin, it's legal according to U.S. law?

     My comments about the Peace Prize?  Goodness, you've said the same thing, although you've drawn different conclusions.

     Be explicit, and we'll talk about it.  Expressing your thoughts as some sort of a personal swipe at me?

     Too much like horseshoes, not enough like discussion to actually address to topic.  That's what I think, anyway.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


41 posted 05-07-2011 03:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sorry, Bob, didn't mean to be so cryptic and definietly not personally insulting. It's just that I was leaving for work this morning and happened to see your comment in question before I left. There are times that you serve up a plate of linguistic linguini that leaves me totally confused. This may be my deficiency, not yours, but this example struck me as one of the less palatable.

You state that Obama was given the Peace prize in the hopes of what he would do. Assuredly you meant what he would do on the world scene with regards to peace. I doubt the Nobel committee would be concerned about him making peace between the Yankees and the Red Sox. You state that you feel he has earned the award. You also state that you don't like a lot of his foreign policy. One has to wonder, then, what causes you to claim he has earned his Peace prize. Lessening the situation in Iraq? He hasn't. Lessening the situation in Afghanistan? He hasn't. Closing Gitmo? He hasn't. Managing not to get us involved in another war, using our troops, equipment and money, in which we have no stake ? He hasn't. What then, in the name of the Grand Poobah, has he done to cause you to make such a statement?????  To the contrary, I can imagine the peace prize committee looking at each other and saying, "Oops!"
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


42 posted 05-08-2011 12:10 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Ah!

     Put us back on talking terms with most of the rest of the world would be my best guess.

     I don't like a lot of the things he's done or the way he's gone about them, mind you, including Gitmo.  But then, you weren't in favor of him doing anything at all with Gitmo, and his actions should be earning your support, shouldn't they, unless you've changed your position on Gitmo.  Same with Iraq.  And you're in favor of expanded torture as a means of gaining information, if I recall correctly, for both foreign and domestic sources.  I'm uncertain about what your actual complaints may be about, while I am all too clear about the nature of mine.

     I'm in favor of war crimes investigations against President Bush, and against President Obama where he has continued policies that have resulted in torture as defined by international standards that we have supported in the past, and which we have used to bring war criminals  to trial with in the past.  Both of them.  What about your position on this?

     "'Well that's all right then'" really isn't all right at all, not for anybody.

     Yes, that includes President Obama.  But it also includes the various administrations that have come beforehand.

     No, I don't approve of Osama Bin Ladin, and I never did.  That doesn't mean that I approve of what we did in other places using Osama Bin Ladin as an excuse, either.  Does Hitler excuse Stalin or vice versa?  Not to my mind.  I don't think it does to yours either, frankly, though heaven knows it's a more complicated chain of thinking than the simplified version I've presented, and I don't want to pretend that my presentation is the only or even the best way to frame things.

     Thoughts?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 05-08-2011 05:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Put us back on talking terms with most of the rest of the world would be my best guess.

That's the only sentence in your entire reply that had anything to do with your justification of his peace prize, Bob. You claim he has earned it but have to give a "best guess" as to why? Sorry, but I consider that to be quite weak, at best. I would think the other nominees might agree with me.

He was handed the peace prize in the hopes of alleviating our situation in the Middle East. Instead of doing that, he has involved us in yet another conflict. I would not call that earning his prize.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (05-08-2011 08:46 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


44 posted 05-08-2011 10:46 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well if it makes you feel any better Mike and John,  Michael Moore agrees with you!  He thinks the President should give back the Nobel Peace prize.

I think the 'points' that you're missing though -- is that President Obama is behaving exactly the way Candidate Obama said he was going to;

From Veterans administration funding, to getting us out of Iraq, to re-focusing our efforts in Afghanistan and sending "at least two" additional brigades, to going into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden -- it's all laid out quite nicely during his campaign:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=2http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=2

So, I guess my question is -- why would you, Micheal Moore, or the Nobel Prize Committee have expected anything different?  The only thing he hasn't been able to accomplish is the closing of Gitmo -- and that isn't for a lack of trying -- it's just harder to put that genie back into the bottle.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 05-08-2011 05:32 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Mike, you are certainly correct.  As is L.R.  Though my understanding is that President Obama was presented the Peace Prize anyway.  While Michael Moore may well have a point, I think that the Nobel committee is still made up of the sorts of folks who gave the prize to Henry Kissinger, and who are a bit more on the realistic than the totally idealistic side of things.   I suspect they gave the prize because President Obama wasn't trying to remove the United States from the World Community, as President Bush was attempting to do — at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of much of the rest of the world and in the apparent opinion of many of our major Western allies.  France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the usual suspects.  If they weren't clear at first, they became clear as time went on.

     I do understand that you disagree, and I don't see that I will be able to change your mind.

     The Nobel Prize Committee, however, are the folks in charge of making up the Nobel prize committee's minds.  There are choices that they've made that I haven't liked before, and there are choices they will make that I suspect I won't like again, not only for the Peace Prize, but for the various prizes in literature as well.  I happen to agree with this one and disagree with some of the literature choices.  I don't think that they're going to get it right any more frequently in one prize category than in another, though I happen to agree with their choice here.

     If you happen to believe that there is some way to make a matter of taste and opinion somewhat more objective than it is, I suggest that there may be some basic confusion involved here about what the nature of the Prize actually is.

     The Nobel Prize committee has every right to their thoughts and feelings about who deserves their prize.  That is all the prize is, a codification of their best understanding of their thoughts and feelings on the matter.   They can't be wrong; that's simply their best choice for their prize.  Nobody else can make it for them.  They could chose anybody, and they frequently have.  That person would then be the right choice, even Henry Kissinger.  The name of the Prize isn't The Bob Kaven Prize or the Mike Mack Prize, it's the Nobel Prize.  Whomever they chose is automatically right.  Nobody else has to agree or even like it.

     Same as their prize for literature or Chemistry or Physics.

     If you want to give the Mike Mack Peace Prize and offer a million bucks to back it up, please do so.  Then people can tell you that you don't think or feel that the guy you chose is the person you really want to have win the prize, and that you were wrong.  You really meant to give the Prize to Bob Kaven.  

     We all knew that anyway.

     Really, though, you can keep the prize and just send the Million bucks along.  That'd be just fine with me.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


46 posted 05-08-2011 07:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Bob, they can give it to anyone they want, no doubt about that.

My amazement is not with them. Everyone has the right to either agree or disagree with the committee's choice. Your agreement with them after seeing him get us into yet another war is what amazes me. I have little doubt that, if they had known that was going to happen before they gave it to him, they would have made another choice yet you, AFTER having it happen, still believe he is deserving. As I said, I doubt that even they do, now.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


47 posted 05-08-2011 09:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     But what does he have to do in order to be deserving, Mike?  He certainly doesn't have to please me, though in many ways he does, and in some important ways he doesn't.  All he has to do is please the Nobel Committee.

     I think, if I understand their logic, he was still pretty much a good pick for that prize at that time.  And he certainly did show a considerable turn about in many ways from President Bush.  I wanted more and still do.

     But if I understand your positions — and I confess, I really may not — you would like more centralized Presidential Power as was demonstrated by President Bush, less cooperation with other countries in the ways that President Bush demonstrated less cooperation with other countries, less cooperation with international law, more pushing back against conventions against torture, less attention to civil rights and due process as demonstrated by the activities of the Bush administration, and  more freedom for the government to interfere in the legal processes that prior to the Bush administration had been excluded from government involvement.  By this I mean specifically Posse Comitatus, which was set aside during the Bush administration.

     I find it an enduring shame that the Obama administration has not attempted to change that situation, by the way, and would not dream of letting the blame rest with the Bush folks in its entirety.  There's certainly enough shame to spread around to all parties involved in the government.

     By and large, however, the Nobel folks seemed to have seen that the election of President Obama was an attempt at something more like a peaceful track for the country.

     No, it wasn't peaceful enough to satisfy me.

     No, it shouldn't have been peaceful enough to satisfy the country overall.  But it was the best option we had as far a peacefulness went.

     And as far as I understand things — and as I said before, I may well have your position wrong on this —  the position is far more peaceful than one that I understand you to be comfortable with overall, although you do seem to be against President Obama holding these positions.

     I also am against President Obama holding these positions, for what it's worth; but then, I'd rather nobody held them.  They are, as I understand it, pretty much the positions that President Obama ran on in many but not all cases, however.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 05-08-2011 10:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

OK, Bob, obviously there is no way I can make my position clear to you. I've tried and it just doesn't make it. I'm afraid we'll have to leave it at that.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 05-09-2011 02:43 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I've very sorry, Mike.  I suspect I'm simply dense about the business.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Well that's all right then   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors