Dubstepforum.com

As reported by the Associated Press on October 9, 2009 "President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision... " Most people would agree, Obama’s friends and foes alike, that it was "stunning" that the still-green president won the prize, but the general sentiment of astonishment is unwarranted. The decision should not have been "stunning" and no one should have even blinked an eye that he won, because there truly was no one more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than President Barack Obama.

Incredulous? Don’t be. One only need look past the fact that under Obama the United States has escalated the war in Afghanistan, started a war in Pakistan, continued that completely justifiable and constitutional war in Iraq (which Obama at one time described as a "dumb" and "rash" war), and threatened Iran with "confrontation" if it does not cooperate with the U.S. and other world powers with respect to its nuclear ambitions. Nevermind the U.S. soldiers and innocent civilians who have died and continue to die in these wars... police actions... terrorists hunts... uh... whatever these military operations are now called. Don’t worry about the fact that America has a major military presence in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and has hundreds of military bases throughout the world. Forget that the United States has the largest military presence of any empire... ever.

The foregoing facts should not detract from what should have been the real reason for Obama’s receipt of the coveted prize: No one has done a better job at bringing peace to the anti-war movement.

The anti-war movement — blah! What a disgusting array of individuals that made up that fad. Such degenerates. They made life miserable for the angelic neocons Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc., not to mention they invaded our television sets nearly every night for years with their propaganda.

They posed as enemies of war but their true intentions were transparent — they really hated peace. Indeed, it would be more appropriate to call that movement the anti-peace movement. After all, they made it difficult for the leaders of the United States to continue their peace keeping missions throughout the world. They refused to understand what Orwell recognized many decades ago: war actually is peace. They were blinded to the fact that the only way to establish peace in any country is to attack it, lay waste to its infrastructure and then rebuild it from the ground up in our own democratic image... or at least in some similar image with the term "democratic" attached to it.

In spite of the irrefutable fact that the Bush neocons were on the moral high ground, the anti-peace movement just could not see past the dropping bombs, the dismembered bodies of children, and the dead and wounded young American soldiers. The anti-peace movement even forced the Bushites to rein in some of their lofty goals to promote peace through war. Those anti-peace lunatics made Bush et al. look as if they were aggressors, not peacemakers.

Remember the anti-peace protests that accompanied Bush and Cheney everywhere they traveled? Remember the anti-peace rhetoric from the news media? Remember the Iraqi man who threw his shoe at President Bush? (That was funny.) Remember the marches on Washington? Remember the rallies at American universities? That was such a violent, contentious time.

Someone had to rise up, a messiah if you will, to save us from those who preach against taking the necessary measures of violence, bloodshed, and death to achieve peace. Mr. Obama was that man and he should be thanked by all. Those in Oslo recognized this and so should everyone else.

Due to Mr. Obama’s persuasion, charisma, and honesty, the anti-peace movement has finally recognized that Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and any other peace causing war is necessary. Without Obama they never would have seen this important truth.

Thanks to Obama, one can stroll down a college campus without being bombarded with "Get Us Out of Iraq" signs. Finally, all of those hippies who wandered outside to chant "Impeach Bush" have gone back in-doors to practice what they preach by making love not war. Finally, NBC has stopped doing specials about Cindy Sheehan. Finally, the United States can continue its peace keeping missions (i.e., warmongering) without internal dissent.

Stunning that he won? By no means. He deserved it. With the anti-peace movement out of the way, the United States, with Obama at its head, will now be able to really bring peace to the world.

The US bring peace to the world? its just a polite way to say there trying to rule the world and will gun down anyone that gets in there way realy.

the artful dodger wrote:The US bring peace to the world? its just a polite way to say there trying to rule the world and will gun down anyone that gets in there way realy.

yep

so true..
this is why i hate obama so much, at least everyone had their eyes on Bush but now everyone's in awe of obama just cos he's got his speech right.
despicable really

the artful dodger wrote:The US bring peace to the world? its just a polite way to say there trying to rule the world and will gun down anyone that gets in there way realy.

Yea I'm pretty sure the entire essay was written with tongue planted in cheek. If anything it is a rebuke of the peacenik types who are now silent while Obama kills and maims around the world in the same manner. Obama silenced the vocal opposition to the war machine... in that way, he's brought peace and calm(if you own war bonds).

Yea I'm pretty sure the entire essay was written with tongue planted in cheek.

You should know, you fucking wrote it

surface_tension wrote:

the artful dodger wrote:The US bring peace to the world? its just a polite way to say there trying to rule the world and will gun down anyone that gets in there way realy.

Yea I'm pretty sure the entire essay was written with tongue planted in cheek. If anything it is a rebuke of the peacenik types who are now silent while Obama kills and maims around the world in the same manner. Obama silenced the vocal opposition to the war machine... in that way, he's brought peace and calm(if you own war bonds).

No, he's been given a short amount of time to prove that he had the balls to back up his manifesto. It's now starting to look like he didn't have the balls and people are beginning to speak up... you can't just assume he's going to fuck up and then be all "we told you so", that's just a negative way to live. The guy gave a lot of people a lot of hope, hopefully the consequence of that will actually end up being a lot of people shouting at him to start living up to the hype... he's already had to make speeches (last week) where he acknowledged that this sort of talk was goin around, so it is reaching him.

If he doesn't work a lot harder (or more effectively, whatever) VERY soon, he will have a serious problem on his hands... not just from the Red sides of the fence, but from an awful lot of angry left/liberalists who put their faith in him. He could end up with far bigger problems than Bush ever had. Of course, if he turns things around, he could still end up being the best US Pres in [my] living memory, so we can only hope and make sure the discussion is always taking place... it might be that a bit of civil unrest supporting those things he promised (health care, end to don't ask don't tell etc) might go a little way to reminding him why the fuck he was elected in the first place. Surely Americans voted for all that shit at the Election already? They chose the dude with the health care plan. They chose the dude who wanted to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. They chose the dude who was all about the environment. So why the fuck does he still feel the need to convince everyone all over again? Why even have the debate? Bush didn't bother, he just told everyone they needed to go to war... Obama needs the balls to stand up and say "You voted for public health care. You need public health care." rather than essentially standing up and asking lots of people to disagree with it in public.

I think Obama has a lot of very good intentions and I think it's a good thing that America picked someone like him to lead them on the international stage, but as far as being an effective policy implementor goes... Bush runs fucking rings around him. So do Clinton and Bush Snr too... if he's not careful, he's Carter. Remembered by history as a "lovely bloke".

pk- wrote:

Yea I'm pretty sure the entire essay was written with tongue planted in cheek.

You should know, you fucking wrote it

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+deserved+it

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=267

Obama Deserved It
By Jerry Salcido
Published 10/10/09

Jerry Salcido [jerrysalcido@yahoo.com] is a trial and appellate lawyer in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Clearly, I am neither you fucking twit. Not Jerry Salcido, nor a trial lawyer from San Francisco.

@Magma, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He has no intentions that are good. I know this for a fact because he is a sitting US President in his 1st term. He's focused on 3 years from now and then vacationing for 4 years before his speaking tour begins. You don't become President of the United States of America by playing by the rules, not taking bribes and not breaking the law. It's basically the only way to BE President. That alone is reason enough to not trust him. Him being government is enough reason not to trust him. And even if you do trust, always verify. He's not shit, IMO. Fortunately his own party agrees with me for the most part. His approval numbers are not going to stay high for much longer and all hell will break loose. You're right that he should sack up and do what he said. Fuck, I don't want his plan and I wish that he'd at least force it through instead of pretending and taking 5 years doing it.

We're spending more money fighting about healthcare than we are curing the sick and dying.

why didn't you credit it when you copy & pasted it then you massive bell end

Because I didn't

magma wrote:No, he's been given a short amount of time to prove that he had the balls to back up his manifesto.

it's not like he didn't make any decisions, he made enough of them and they weren't good

Yeah I still don't see how his foreign policy is this good. He's only good for the public perception of the USA from already allied countries.

How are his policies, that are awfully similar to Clinton's (and the plans for 9/11 were made during his terms as a president) that good? I.. just completely fail to see it. I mean, you're getting someone who threatens Iran with the possibility of war, who still wants to disarm the whole world (without trying to set an example by disarming the USA or even telling Israel to disarm), who is prolonging Bush's nation building policies in Afghanistan and I am PARAPHRASING him here, what's so great about his policies? Because he says 'diplomacy' every so often? What kinda diplomacy? He's obviously picking sides, the way he's picking Israel's side in their conflict. That's not diplomacy, that's alliances. Alliances are one of the reasons that the USA was attacked.

So please, how are the policies he claims to have that good?

Top put things in perspective... Everything in a darker brown is American owned/controlled/funded/has an American military base/has nuclear weapons that we own and have access to...

The lighter color is the sovereign Democratic Republic of Iran... why would any rational country, such as Iran, feel as though they need weapons to protect themselves from outside harm?



We fucking flank them on all sides. Obama's "peace plan" is to move our forces further into Pakistan so that we have the ultimate position to block the straits where Iran exports/imports their oil. Then we either have a peaceful transfer via CIA puppet, or we have a bloody costly war machine battle... either way the plans were already laid out by the NeoCon's. Obama is one of them. He can claim whatever he wants, his actions speak volumes.

Next stop is Iran. Don't believe that shit, google the names of his Cabinet members... hell, his Chief of Staff is a Dual Israeli/US Citizen. His father was an Israeli terrorist. This is UNDISPUTED by Obama or the guys son tbh. His father said that "my son will not be cleaning the floors of the White House like a muslim"

Verbatim quote ya'll. Israeli zionist shill government in the White House. We're attacking Iran, if not today, tomorrow. It will fucking happen. Write it down!

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009 ... profiteer/

Also another nice piece on one of Obama's big senate buddies. Fuckin peace mongers.

surface_tension wrote:@Magma, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He has no intentions that are good. I know this for a fact because he is a sitting US President in his 1st term. He's focused on 3 years from now and then vacationing for 4 years before his speaking tour begins. You don't become President of the United States of America by playing by the rules, not taking bribes and not breaking the law. It's basically the only way to BE President. That alone is reason enough to not trust him. Him being government is enough reason not to trust him. And even if you do trust, always verify. He's not shit, IMO. Fortunately his own party agrees with me for the most part. His approval numbers are not going to stay high for much longer and all hell will break loose. You're right that he should sack up and do what he said. Fuck, I don't want his plan and I wish that he'd at least force it through instead of pretending and taking 5 years doing it.

We're spending more money fighting about healthcare than we are curing the sick and dying.

I'm not going to argue with any of that... I see it as a matter of optimism that I lean to trusting his (at least vocal) intentions and supporting people to push him to make sure they get achieved. You may well be right though, but I find it a slightly pessemistic point of view that would lead me towards supporting resigned inaction rather than (possibly futile) action of some description.

But yeah, I hear the logic.

And I agree on the healthcare. It's mental. I genuinely don't understand what on earth is going on at the moment... why aren't their people on the streets protesting that what they voted in their majority for hasn't been implemented yet? Why aren't US leaders on TV everyday telling everyone it's necessary like the Bush Administration did with their wars?

Iran's a fucking scary situation... war would be a fucking terrible idea. Their burgeoning middle class will make them much more west-friendly in the coming century or so... rolling tanks in would put that back centuries (as it has in Iraq), IMHO.

War in Afghanistan is always a bad idea. Superpowers seem to try and invade Afghanistan all the time... NOBODY manages it... not for fucking centuries. The whole western idea of what Afghanistan is is wrong.

ST knows!

and it's always the same question: when you have billions, you have all the media and you can afford buying either the best campaign or the people themselves, how could you lose in front of some black guy that cares only about the nation?! you just can't.

so if you're a winner in that game you're one of them, because they make the rules, they pay the referees and give away the prizes.

i think obama is hired to be a loser anyway and to compromise the idea of a minority president forever. but that's just an opinion so far

Genevieve wrote:Yeah I still don't see how his foreign policy is this good. He's only good for the public perception of the USA from already allied countries.

How are his policies, that are awfully similar to Clinton's (and the plans for 9/11 were made during his terms as a president) that good? I.. just completely fail to see it. I mean, you're getting someone who threatens Iran with the possibility of war, who still wants to disarm the whole world (without trying to set an example by disarming the USA or even telling Israel to disarm), who is prolonging Bush's nation building policies in Afghanistan and I am PARAPHRASING him here, what's so great about his policies? Because he says 'diplomacy' every so often? What kinda diplomacy? He's obviously picking sides, the way he's picking Israel's side in their conflict. That's not diplomacy, that's alliances. Alliances are one of the reasons that the USA was attacked.

So please, how are the policies he claims to have that good?

I'm actually fairly curious what people like about his foreign policy. o.o Any Obama supporter explain? What about his plans for the Middle East do you like and why?

It's not to start an argument, but I'm just kind of baffled that his take on foreign policy gets so much support from the public because, as I started before, he doesn't rule out aggression against Iran and he doesn't seem to have any plans to retreat from the Middle East and stop the USA's alliance with Israel at all. Then there's him being pretty hot for prolonging the Afghan conflict.. What's good about his foreign policy?

Genevieve wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Yeah I still don't see how his foreign policy is this good. He's only good for the public perception of the USA from already allied countries.

How are his policies, that are awfully similar to Clinton's (and the plans for 9/11 were made during his terms as a president) that good? I.. just completely fail to see it. I mean, you're getting someone who threatens Iran with the possibility of war, who still wants to disarm the whole world (without trying to set an example by disarming the USA or even telling Israel to disarm), who is prolonging Bush's nation building policies in Afghanistan and I am PARAPHRASING him here, what's so great about his policies? Because he says 'diplomacy' every so often? What kinda diplomacy? He's obviously picking sides, the way he's picking Israel's side in their conflict. That's not diplomacy, that's alliances. Alliances are one of the reasons that the USA was attacked.

So please, how are the policies he claims to have that good?

I'm actually fairly curious what people like about his foreign policy. o.o Any Obama supporter explain? What about his plans for the Middle East do you like and why?

It's not to start an argument, but I'm just kind of baffled that his take on foreign policy gets so much support from the public because, as I started before, he doesn't rule out aggression against Iran and he doesn't seem to have any plans to retreat from the Middle East and stop the USA's alliance with Israel at all. Then there's him being pretty hot for prolonging the Afghan conflict.. What's good about his foreign policy?

x2
obama supporters usually are obama supporters because they can't answer straight and valid these kind of questions

Genevieve wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Yeah I still don't see how his foreign policy is this good. He's only good for the public perception of the USA from already allied countries.

How are his policies, that are awfully similar to Clinton's (and the plans for 9/11 were made during his terms as a president) that good? I.. just completely fail to see it. I mean, you're getting someone who threatens Iran with the possibility of war, who still wants to disarm the whole world (without trying to set an example by disarming the USA or even telling Israel to disarm), who is prolonging Bush's nation building policies in Afghanistan and I am PARAPHRASING him here, what's so great about his policies? Because he says 'diplomacy' every so often? What kinda diplomacy? He's obviously picking sides, the way he's picking Israel's side in their conflict. That's not diplomacy, that's alliances. Alliances are one of the reasons that the USA was attacked.

So please, how are the policies he claims to have that good?

I'm actually fairly curious what people like about his foreign policy. o.o Any Obama supporter explain? What about his plans for the Middle East do you like and why?

It's not to start an argument, but I'm just kind of baffled that his take on foreign policy gets so much support from the public because, as I started before, he doesn't rule out aggression against Iran and he doesn't seem to have any plans to retreat from the Middle East and stop the USA's alliance with Israel at all. Then there's him being pretty hot for prolonging the Afghan conflict.. What's good about his foreign policy?

I can see what you're getting at. It's an attitude thing, he seems to make discussions happen and people seem comfortable talking to him... he appears open to criticism (we'll see if he reacts to it), he shows respect to other nations cultures, he tries to be seen to have a more 'approachable' edge to him which, when compared to the last 8 years, is a hell of a good thing. Now us foreigners at least have the impression we're being listened to and that our reactions to American policy are taken on board... again, whether he reacts to criticisms from foreign nations is yet to be fully seen.

Whilst I wouldn't say it was definitely a good thing for everyone that he's president, until he gets up to some serious shit at least it's not another 4 years of Bush. I really still think he'll surprise a few people... there's a lot of public resistance to a war in Iran and I actually think, at this point, that he lacks the balls to do anything about it that would piss the public off.... for an *insanely* popular Pres, he's already copping a lot of stick.

I think there is general public support (not mine) for action in Afghanistan... it's been sold well, to be honest and I think it'll carry on for a while. I think it's futile, more or less, but I'm no military expert. I've read Machiavelli though and I reckon he'd be laughing his tits off at western policy in Afghanistan for the last few centuries.

magma wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

Genevieve wrote:Yeah I still don't see how his foreign policy is this good. He's only good for the public perception of the USA from already allied countries.

How are his policies, that are awfully similar to Clinton's (and the plans for 9/11 were made during his terms as a president) that good? I.. just completely fail to see it. I mean, you're getting someone who threatens Iran with the possibility of war, who still wants to disarm the whole world (without trying to set an example by disarming the USA or even telling Israel to disarm), who is prolonging Bush's nation building policies in Afghanistan and I am PARAPHRASING him here, what's so great about his policies? Because he says 'diplomacy' every so often? What kinda diplomacy? He's obviously picking sides, the way he's picking Israel's side in their conflict. That's not diplomacy, that's alliances. Alliances are one of the reasons that the USA was attacked.

So please, how are the policies he claims to have that good?

I'm actually fairly curious what people like about his foreign policy. o.o Any Obama supporter explain? What about his plans for the Middle East do you like and why?

It's not to start an argument, but I'm just kind of baffled that his take on foreign policy gets so much support from the public because, as I started before, he doesn't rule out aggression against Iran and he doesn't seem to have any plans to retreat from the Middle East and stop the USA's alliance with Israel at all. Then there's him being pretty hot for prolonging the Afghan conflict.. What's good about his foreign policy?

I can see what you're getting at. It's an attitude thing, he seems to make discussions happen and people seem comfortable talking to him... he appears open to criticism (we'll see if he reacts to it), he shows respect to other nations cultures, he tries to be seen to have a more 'approachable' edge to him which, when compared to the last 8 years, is a hell of a good thing. Now us foreigners at least have the impression we're being listened to and that our reactions to American policy are taken on board... again, whether he reacts to criticisms from foreign nations is yet to be fully seen.

Whilst I wouldn't say it was definitely a good thing for everyone that he's president, until he gets up to some serious shit at least it's not another 4 years of Bush. I really still think he'll surprise a few people... there's a lot of public resistance to a war in Iran and I actually think, at this point, that he lacks the balls to do anything about it that would piss the public off.... for an *insanely* popular Pres, he's already copping a lot of stick.

I think there is general public support (not mine) for action in Afghanistan... it's been sold well, to be honest and I think it'll carry on for a while. I think it's futile, more or less, but I'm no military expert. I've read Machiavelli though and I reckon he'd be laughing his tits off at western policy in Afghanistan for the last few centuries.

Should the opinions of Euro folk really matter, though? We're not a threat to America's national security and it's our governments that go along with all of America's moves so in that aspect, we should worry more about the lapdog governments we pick. I don't think we really matter when it comes to America's policies. America's foreign policy doesn't pose a threat to our national security and we're already allied as it is. We are largely the same market as America's, anyway.

I don't want an American president that reaches out to Europe. I want an American president that stops reaching out to the Middle East and third world countries. For example. Should it really matter that Obama respects Europe, while he doesn't show the respect to the Islamic world by openly supporting governments oppressive to Muslims (Israel) and having no desire to dissolve the puppet regimes in Saudi-Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan? Actions speak louder than words and when it comes to America's foreign policy, we're utterly irrelevant. Reaching out to Europe doesn't really change anything.

According to recent polling, 2/3 of all Americans would like the USA to take military action against Iran, by the way. o.o 55% of all Democrats too. Considering that Obama isn't opposed to it, I wouldn't hold my breath.