PDA

View Full Version : Nobel Committee Asks Obama To RETURN PEACE PRIZE



GrassrootsConservative
04-27-2013, 04:18 PM
Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, said today that President Obama “really ought to consider” returning his Nobel Peace Prize Medal immediately, including the “really nice” case it came in.
Jagland, flanked by the other four members of the Committee, said they’d never before asked for the return of a Peace Prize, “even from a damnable war-criminal like Kissinger,” but that the 10% drawdown in US troops in Afghanistan the President announced last week capped a period of “non-Peace-Prize-winner-type behavior” in 2011. “Guantanamo’s still open. There’s bombing Libya. There’s blowing bin Laden away rather than putting him on trial. Now a few US troops go home, but the US will be occupying Afghanistan until 2014 and beyond. Don’t even get me started on Yemen!”
The Committee awarded Obama the coveted prize in 2009 after he made a series of speeches in the first months of his presidency, which convinced the Peace Prize Committee that he was: “creating a new climate of…multilateral diplomacy…an emphasis on the role of the United Nations…of dialogue and negotiations as instruments for resolving international conflicts…and a vision of world free of nuclear arms.”

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/lol-nobel-committee-asks-obama-to-return-peace-prize/

:poopfan:

Chloe
04-27-2013, 04:21 PM
He should return it in my opinion

GrassrootsConservative
04-27-2013, 04:27 PM
He should return it in my opinion

They never should have given it to him.

That's what happens when "prizes" are given for what people say they will do versus what they actually do after all that cheap talk.

Trust, but verify.
- Ronald Reagan

Chloe
04-27-2013, 04:28 PM
They never should have given it to him.

That's what happens when "prizes" are given for what people say they will do versus what they actually do after all that cheap talk.

Trust, but verify.
- Ronald Reagan

I agree, and I am sure there were probably some very sincere people that should have been given that honor instead of the president.

Peter1469
04-27-2013, 04:48 PM
He should not return it. The Nobel prize is a political tool (not the ones given for specific achievements like science or medical advances); they gave the Nobel to Obama for representing the liberal progressive movement. And to stick Bush in the eye. They knew what they were doing.

GrassrootsConservative
04-27-2013, 05:16 PM
The arrogant Obomber will not return his peace prize. I think we all know that.

simpsonofpg
04-27-2013, 06:34 PM
I wouldn't have thought they would ever do that. They have given it to some many undeserving people, Obama was just one more. It had gotten so bad it no longer had any real meaning.

roadmaster
04-27-2013, 09:39 PM
He was up against a few that really deserved it and had done the work. They were too hasty with this one. Even other countries agreed on this. All because of a speech.

Peter1469
04-27-2013, 09:44 PM
It was politics.

Ransom
04-27-2013, 09:51 PM
This was always more about who was giving it rather than who they were giving it to. Too late to give it back maybe concentrate on your obviously lacking vetting process. Best be more careful who you give it to.....morons.

Greenridgeman
04-27-2013, 09:57 PM
This was always more about who was giving it rather than who they were giving it to. Too late to give it back maybe concentrate on your obviously lacking vetting process. Best be more careful who you give it to.....morons.


Nobel Prize is as significant as the Time 100 Influential People list.

roadmaster
04-27-2013, 10:14 PM
It was politics. Yep

Mister D
04-27-2013, 11:00 PM
Should he return it? I still want to know a) why it was offered and b) why he accepted it.

Adelaide
04-28-2013, 06:40 AM
He shouldn't have gotten it to begin with. He should return it.

Ransom
04-28-2013, 06:59 AM
He shouldn't return it. It should remain in his office proving how ridiculous not only it's presenters have become, but also stand as yet another expectation of Obama supporters that he never could fulfill.

The Prize was given to influence policy, Forum. They believed they could influence Obama's decisions regarding American policy abroad and when he cared as little for foreign opinion that he did the opinions coming from his own Party, they now want it back.

Let it be the symbol. Of the joke the Peace Prize has become given to an unqualified accepter.

Mister D
04-28-2013, 09:07 AM
He shouldn't return it. It should remain in his office proving how ridiculous not only it's presenters have become, but also stand as yet another expectation of Obama supporters that he never could fulfill.

The Prize was given to influence policy, Forum. They believed they could influence Obama's decisions regarding American policy abroad and when he cared as little for foreign opinion that he did the opinions coming from his own Party, they now want it back.

Let it be the symbol. Of the joke the Peace Prize has become given to an unqualified accepter.

That makes sense and seems likely.

Adelaide
04-28-2013, 09:13 AM
I don't think the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, but I agree that it was used with political motivation instead of actually rewarding people who have risked a lot for peace. It essentially put the integrity of the award into question, which everyone knew from the get-go.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:36 AM
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/lol-nobel-committee-asks-obama-to-return-peace-prize/

:poopfan:



If only the Congress would ask him to resign.

Ransom
04-28-2013, 02:50 PM
The People were asked less than 7 months ago if we wanted him to resign.

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:12 PM
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/lol-nobel-committee-asks-obama-to-return-peace-prize/

i thought it was silly to give a nobel peace prize to someone who hadn't served yet.

so they want it back because they jumped the gun?

ijits.

they gave it to arafat. i think that ends the whining.

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:14 PM
He should not return it. The Nobel prize is a political tool (not the ones given for specific achievements like science or medical advances); they gave the Nobel to Obama for representing the liberal progressive movement. And to stick Bush in the eye. They knew what they were doing.

bush deserved to be stuck in the eye for invading a country that didn't attack us.

Ransom
04-28-2013, 05:53 PM
bush deserved to be stuck in the eye for invading a country that didn't attack us.

Oh look, another Bush deflection

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 05:58 PM
Oh look, another Bush deflection


It's so silly.

Ransom
04-28-2013, 06:02 PM
Firstly, Iraq did attack us on several occasions. Secondly, it's quite obvious why we attaked Iraq when militants from Saudi Arabia based in Afghanistan attacked us on 9-11. It requires any observer understand the links between Iraq and 9-11, why Osama Bin Laden really attacked us. Jillian, in my opinion, doesn't know why.

jillian
04-28-2013, 06:20 PM
Oh look, another Bush deflection

and another whine from you.

how are the lies going today?

Ransom
04-28-2013, 06:46 PM
I wonder if they can just revoke the prize...why ask if Obama will return it? Are they gonna give it to someone else?

BB-35
04-28-2013, 08:18 PM
bush deserved to be stuck in the eye for invading a country that didn't attack us.

12 years of firing on our jets doesn't count,eh?

Mainecoons
04-28-2013, 09:14 PM
Not near enough to start another stupid war. You can solve that problem by simply having your vastly superior warplanes shoot down anyone who shoots at them. And leave it at that. Even the most stupid would figure out to stop shooting at better aircraft and pilots at some point.

jillian
04-28-2013, 10:43 PM
Firstly, Iraq did attack us on several occasions. Secondly, it's quite obvious why we attaked Iraq when militants from Saudi Arabia based in Afghanistan attacked us on 9-11. It requires any observer understand the links between Iraq and 9-11, why Osama Bin Laden really attacked us. Jillian, in my opinion, doesn't know why.

iraq never attaked the US, ransom. iraq never threatened the us, ransom. iraq kept iran at bay, ransom.

you really might want to do some studying up on the region.

as for OBL... WE trained him. he operated for US...

i'll also point out he had no connect with iraq. you understand that, right, ransom?

his stated reasons for attacking us were as follows, ransom:

1. he wanted us OUT OF BIN SULTAN AFB. he felt we were desecrating holy land by having female soldiers there.
2. he wanted to consolidate his support among islamic fundies.
3. he wanted to goad us into creating a justification for jihad and use a resultant war as a training ground for AQ.
4. finally, he used the israeli/palestinian issue as an excuse to gather support among fellow arabs. he didn't really care about that issue.

so let's analyze what the result of our idiotic policy vis a vis iraq was...

knowing that the state department had told his father that if our troops went to baghdad, we'd destabilize the country... bush ignored the warnings and went in anyway.

knowing that he needed more troops to actually do the job right, he listened to rumsfeld and tried to do the war on the cheap and didn't have enough troops there to protect the iraqi people and infrastructure and antiquities ... despite being warned by his generals what was necessary.

and then what?

we did destabilize the region.

we took away the one thing that held iran at bay.

we now have an islamic regime in iraq... which is NOT what we needed... they are now allied with iran.. .which is also not what we needed.

we ended up getting out of bin sultan AFB

gave obl his training ground for his terrorists

gave him a rallying cry to unifythe muslim world through disasters like abu ghraib and use of waterboarding.

and gave him his jihad b/c our then "president" called our efforts a "crusade"

yeah, great policy.

but it's looking like you don't have a great deal of understanding about what happened.

Ransom
04-29-2013, 09:09 AM
iraq never attaked the US, ransom. iraq never threatened the us, ransom. iraq kept iran at bay, ransom.

Never claimed they attacked the US, they attacked us...our forces. Several times. Not to mention tried to assassinate a US President. And kept Iran at bay....how? By a decade long war that killed millions? forcing us to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers for example, forcing us to prevent Iran from mining the Straits of Hormuz? Iraq and Iran mortal enemies, the region unstable at best. For decades.


you really might want to do some studying up on the region.

I don't mind informing you on this topic at all Jillian, I'm probably even going to enjoy this and I promise not to charge you a penny in tuition costs.


i'll also point out he had no connect with iraq. you understand that, right, ransom?

Careful again. He had no contact with Iraq, but there is a clear connection. I can easily link you to it at your request.


his stated reasons for attacking us were as follows, ransom:

1. he wanted us OUT OF BIN SULTAN AFB. he felt we were desecrating holy land by having female soldiers there.
2. he wanted to consolidate his support among islamic fundies.
3. he wanted to goad us into creating a justification for jihad and use a resultant war as a training ground for AQ.
4. finally, he used the israeli/palestinian issue as an excuse to gather support among fellow arabs. he didn't really care about that issue.

His stated reasons were three, not five. And you didn't give a source link for Bin Laden's "stated reasons", did Bin Laden write that?


so let's analyze what the result of our idiotic policy vis a vis iraq was...

I'm more than willing to show you it wasn't idiocy and made perfect sense, but carry on.


knowing that the state department had told his father that if our troops went to baghdad, we'd destabilize the country... bush ignored the warnings and went in anyway.

Went in with the support of Congress you forget. And please don't tell me your use of the word destabilize means that when we went into Iraq in 2003, the country was 'stabilized' in any way, shape, or form.


knowing that he needed more troops to actually do the job right, he listened to rumsfeld and tried to do the war on the cheap and didn't have enough troops there to protect the iraqi people and infrastructure and antiquities ... despite being warned by his generals what was necessary.

Do you have a source for any of this....or is this what Rachael Maddow says?


and then what?

This should be good.......


we did destabilize the region.

Let me see if I understand.....we destabilized the region by invading in 2003? We were flying no fly zone enforcement for a decade. Iraq under crushing sanctions destabilizing their entire economy. Exchanges of fire between no fly zone enforcement and Iraqi forces frequent. Iran building an atomic bomb, the two most heinous terrorists known to date being harbored in Iraq, the Palestinian Israeli issue the exact same, the situation was far from stabilized, what are you talking about?


we took away the one thing that held iran at bay.

And replaced it with what? Think for a moment Jillian. The Mullahs in Iran used Iraq's threat to their very existence as justification for their military might, their need for nuclear weapons, their need for an oppressive police state. Consider....oh wordly one.....if a successful Republic of Iraq becomes a reality. Not there...yet, I'm not claiming Iraq yet such a successful self-determing Republic. But consider it does happen and it does still stand a chance.....that Jillian, is the death knell for the Iranian government. It's much more than keeping it at bay.


we now have an islamic regime in iraq... which is NOT what we needed... they are now allied with iran.. .which is also not what we needed.

Be careful when you say allied with Iran, again, you write all of this without the slightest shred of sourcework. But then allied with Iran...who is that a larger threat to.......Jillian? The biggest fear for the Mullahs is self-determination. Their greatest problem now their young populace who by the hour do not believe in their divine rule, but want economic stability and freedoms, they've just had recent awakenings..as you know. Are you telling me they've now allied with a nation enjoying much more self-detemination today? Electing their government leadership?


gave him a rallying cry to unifythe muslim world through disasters like abu ghraib and use of waterboarding.

His rallying cry was his greatest achievement as a murdering terrorist...in 2001. We're speaking to the 2003 Iraq War as Bin Laden's rallying cry? You are wholesale incorrect and I can easily show you that.


but it's looking like you don't have a great deal of understanding about what happened.

Where are you getting your news? Who has informed you this badly, someone needs to be held to account. This misinformation and wholesale falseness needs to be called out. I apologize in front for being the one to do it, you are wrong in your opinions here and I'm talking, not even close wrong.

Ransom
04-29-2013, 09:32 AM
Not near enough to start another stupid war. You can solve that problem by simply having your vastly superior warplanes shoot down anyone who shoots at them. And leave it at that. Even the most stupid would figure out to stop shooting at better aircraft and pilots at some point.

You can solve that problem, what do you do..with all the other problems?

patrickt
04-29-2013, 11:44 AM
Why don't they just admit they should never have given it to him and been done with it. Sure he's far left and hates Americans but that's not enough.

Cigar
04-29-2013, 11:47 AM
Here's yo prize ... but sorry I spent the prize money on winning Back-2-Back United States President Elections


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/NobelPrize.JPG

getridofObama
05-24-2013, 11:39 PM
Throw His Ass in Jail Where He Belongs with His BFF Holder...

Private Pickle
05-25-2013, 12:09 AM
He shouldn't return it. Then, hopefully, the Novel committee will really think through who they give their prizes to...

jillian
05-25-2013, 01:32 AM
Throw His Ass in Jail Where He Belongs with His BFF Holder...

obama derangement syndrome is so very sad

KC
05-25-2013, 02:24 AM
obama derangement syndrome is so very sad

Agree, but it's not as though we can have him treated or institutionalized while he is still acting as President :grin:

jillian
05-25-2013, 03:35 AM
Agree, but it's not as though we can have him treated or institutionalized while he is still acting as President :grin:

really? :rolleyes:

KC
05-25-2013, 03:43 AM
really? :rolleyes:

Just a joke.

simpsonofpg
05-26-2013, 07:33 PM
Just a joke.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Peter1469
05-26-2013, 08:28 PM
It would be silly for Obama to return it. The committee needs to start being serious when they nominate someone.

Micketto
05-28-2013, 01:23 PM
It would be silly for Obama to return it. The committee needs to start being serious when they nominate someone.

It's too late.

They lost all credibility with that pandering move.

No one takes them seriously.... except for the families of all future winners of course.

Cigar
05-28-2013, 01:25 PM
It's too late.

They lost all credibility with that pandering move.

No one takes them seriously.... except for the families of all future winners of course.

Do they want the money back also? :grin:

Mister D
05-28-2013, 01:25 PM
The Nobel Committee stopped being serious a long time ago. At least in terms of the peace nonsense.

Micketto
05-28-2013, 01:27 PM
The Nobel Committee stopped being serious a long time ago. At least in terms of the peace nonsense.

Good point.

Peter1469
05-28-2013, 03:19 PM
It's too late.

They lost all credibility with that pandering move.

No one takes them seriously.... except for the families of all future winners of course.

There are still plenty of meaningful Nobels- look at the ones given for non-political achievements, like math, science, etc....

Mister D
05-28-2013, 04:53 PM
There are still plenty of meaningful Nobels- look at the ones given for non-political achievements, like math, science, etc....

Agreed. It's the ideological ones that are a joke.