jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (159 posts)

Drones, Kill Lists and Obamas Peace Prize

  1. PhoenixV profile image80
    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago

    Drones, Kill Lists and Obamas Peace Prize

    It is suggested that using drones and having kill lists is contradictory to obama receiving a peace prize.

    Further, If GWB was doing it today, many liberals and democrats would be up in arms, but seem to be hypocritically silent on obama supposedly using drones and kill lists.


    What gives?

    1. 58
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Its very simple, if Bush did it its evil. If Obama does the same thing its good. Some people call it hypocrisy.

      1. knolyourself profile image60
        knolyourselfposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The rift that keeps on giving.

    2. The0NatureBoy profile image65
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There were many protests against drones here in DC during Bush's watch also, it just wasn't as wide spread and publicized because Bush did so many other atrocities.  There's still constant protests of drones under Obama here now also.

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think he should have to give back that peace prize?

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Definitely, Yes!!!

          1. Petra Vlah profile image60
            Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obama should have not received it in the first place. The Noble prize is given for a lifelong achievement  in a specific area and at the time he received the prize he had NONE in terms of peace and still does NOT have much to show for today.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We agree.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I agree too.

      2. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Lets give GWB a Nobel Peace Prize too. Maybe then liberals would see the hypocrisy of it.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What did Bush do for world peace?

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He killed less people with drones than obama.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But that is beside the point.

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              George W. Bush did nothing that warranted the committees consideration for the prize, whereas Obama evidently did something. Disagree with that all you want, but those are the facts, and no amount of Obama bashing will change that. He won the Nobel peace prize, he won the election (twice!) and he is the president of the United States. Get over it.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, he won the Nobel Peace Prize, which made it a joke.

                He was elected twice, which makes America a joke.

                1. tammybarnette profile image60
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually Bush being elected twice made America a joke because he was a bumbling buffoon who hadn't even mastered the English language!

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Bush wasn't the greatest President... but he was no Obama.

                    Make fun of Bush for the way he talks, I'm going to stick with actual issues, policies, and results. I wouldn't expect any differently though.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, under Bush, America hit a new nadir in world opinion and respect. President Obama has elevated our standing and respect around the world. Bush will surely rank among the worst presidents while Obama's position is secure as the first African-American president and one among 18 presidents who were elected for a second term. And his signing of the health care bill achieved something that has been a goal of every Democratic president since Truman. Bush will be remembered for two foolish, costly unnecessary wars, for a great recession and a huge deficit due to tax cuts for the rich, an unfunded Medicare drug plan written by Big Pharma and the two costly wars.

              2. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Its just sad that people like Mother Theresa have to share a Prize with someone that has "kill lists" and has used 6 times the amount of drone attacks in 4 years than GWB did in 8. But like a hypocritical liberal, its considered "bashing" to post facts. In fact it is sickening that people like Mother Theresa has to even be remotely in the same league as someone that has "kill lists and uses drones" that have killed 40 % civilian non combatants, including children.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's a good question. We may well be creating more terrorists than we are killing.

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think we should lead by example. If I were someone in another country and I had thugs that I had to deal with and then I had to deal with drone strikes that were targeting the same thugs, it would still be terrifying. To me it just seems like a modern day version of the V2. Families of collateral damage victims are not going to ever see "hellfire" as a good thing. Anyone innocent on the ground is going to perceive it as two thugs going after each other and they are caught in the middle.

        Drones circumvent what should be Congress option as to waging war. Drone attacks on various people and places are not defense of our Country from sudden attacks. I  think we have some people in power that think its best to make it cerebral and clinical and feel like they can make decisions like this outside of the will of We The People.  Therefore there is no discernible difference between them and a despot.

        Meanwhile the People of America are held responsible by other people in the world because of the despotic actions of so few.

        Wars should be the last resort. Any wars we start should be authorized by the People, not by people who will later hide behind the People. Wars should be absolutely meritorious and then as horrifying and all encompassing as it takes to effect a lasting change. That way no bad guys or "alleged good guys" want to run to it so easily as a solution.

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      For some, drone strikes are only bad when a Democrat's finger is on the trigger. If the Republicans were in power the same drone strikes would be spun as a crucial part of national security.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, as they were under Bush...the whole illegal war was fine with them as well because it was a Republican President, such hypocricy...

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Bush oughta get the Nobel then. I find it funny that liberals love Saddam so much.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You know, some people don't change their views depending on who the president is...

          Just sayin, maybe you should try it.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually I am not at all happy about the drone program and have been doing my homework on it's constitutionality, as well as the Patriot Act, and both were enacted under W...does not mean I now accept such atrocities because Obama is a democrat, because I am not a hypocrit.

            1. habee profile image92
              habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Good for you! Many Obama supporters won't admit that he's ever made a mistake.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think some feel the need to defend him too much because he is always being backed into a corner...Now they are claiming his recess appointments unconstitutional roll of course, it has been accepted for the past 100 yrs or so, but now....it's annoying...

        3. habee profile image92
          habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which illegal war?

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this
            1. Teddletonmr profile image81
              Teddletonmrposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Liberal opinion misconstrues facts…

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                roll

            2. habee profile image92
              habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm a little confused. Didn't Congress approve of the war after Irag violated UN Resolution 1441? Didn't Bush win Doe v. Bush?

              I'm not saying the war was a good idea, BTW. But Bush had Congress behind him. Faulty intelligence? Probably so. Hindsight is 20/20.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Next time I hope liberals just adopt the next Saddam and let him live with them.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Saddam Hussein not only didn't have WMD, he had neither the motive nor the means to deliver them against the United States. Our apparent motive was fueled by oil companies and neocon concerns for Israel. The result 4,000 American and upwards of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, half the Christians driven out of the country, and Iraq pushed into the arms of Iran. The doddering old geezer, John McCain, was a big supporter of the invasion and the surge tried to bully Chuck Hagel yesterday into admitting his error in opposing the "surge," but he failed to mention his own error in supporting the ill-considered invasion. (Our Michigan Senators, Levin and Stabenow, both had the wisdom to vote against the invasion.)

                1. PhoenixV profile image80
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  When you say "our" motive, who do you mean exactly? And which oil companies control or produce or were awarded contracts?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "our motive"=the promoters of the invasion--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and everyone who supported it. (I was not one.) My recollection is that U.S. oil companies haven't done well in getting Iraq oil contracts. I also recall Cheney predicting that the cost of the war would be paid for by access to Iraq oil. One of the big beneficiaries of the war was Halliburton, the company Cheney was chairman of.

              3. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                All you have to do is Google "democrat quotes on Saddam" "Clinton quotes on WMD programs". "Levin Letters to Clinton on Iraq."  "The Iraq Liberation Act".  Then it becomes blatantly clear on who is honest and who is not.

                Personally I wouldn't want Saddam in my neighborhood using sarin gas on the kids at the playground or using scuds on my grandma. It seems the liberals are all for that however. EXCEPT what they actually said, wrote and put to Congress about it all prior to getting rid of him. If a liberal had gotten rid of Saddam they would give him a peace prize lol

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't recall anyone defending Saddam Hussein. But the issue is whether getting rid of him worth the incredible cost in our soldiers' and Iraqi civilians' lives, not to mention American taxpayers' money. From what I read the prevailing view is NO! The same if true for our never-ending war in Afghanistan when our basic mission of getting Osama bin Laden was accomplished by the CIA and a few Navy Seals. Civilizing the religious fanatics in Afghanistan is a hopeless task. Their lack of civilization should have been apparent when the Taliban destroyed the ancient Bamyan statues, not to mention their treatment of girls and women.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Doesn't it seem like it's always business as usual, no matter who is in office?

                  2. greencha profile image67
                    greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Absolutely,,,,get on to your President---seems he on same road as 'Dubbya'...get him on a different road -remind him he aint;; got the Nobel peace prize for nothing, he won his  Presidency mainly based on his promises to go on different road than Dubbya....

              4. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … le6917.htm

                "It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

                Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

                And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

                Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

                And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]

                Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why? "

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image65
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Iraq and Afghanistan!

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is another example of our country making decisions and voting for people that would do such things.  It is part of what is ruining America, and wrecking how we appear to the world, including looking incredibly weak while growing increasingly immoral. 

      It is yet another example of where truth, morality don't really matter to those who act like it doesn't matter.  What is so bad about that, is that it used to just hurt those that did it, more than it does now.  NOW, we all are hurt by it, and it is going to be a very very interesting ride to watch how this continues to play out.  It can't go well, and it shouldn't go well.  My hope is that more and more people wake up and stop taking it all laying down.

      A peace prize?  I can't even let my mind go there, even though it is already something that has happened.  It is actually a slap in the face of all things good, and to all the people of the past that actually deserved one.

    6. Hawaiian Scribe profile image92
      Hawaiian Scribeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obama did nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.  Absolutely nothing.  The Nobel Peace Prize website states that he was given the award 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.  Really?  Where was I when this happened?  And how has it gone for him since?  Iran going nuclear, North Korea testing missiles and nuclear, Israel's Netanyahu can't stand him, 60K people killed in Syria since March 2011 and U.S. does nothing, Egypt on verge of government collapse, relationship with Russia's Putin deteriorating, Obama revs up Afghanistan war which is a sewer pit, Libyan extremists kill first American ambassador in 30 years, North Africa is now crawling with Al Qaeda...and on and on.  Is the world more peaceful today because of Barack Obama?  The world must be laughing at the U.S. to think that this man got re-elected.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Aloha, Stephanie. It is nice to meet you and nice to see you venture into the forum.

        The world, it seems, is not laughing at the US because Americans re-elected President Obama. Actually, a majority of those surveyed in 21 nations just before November’s election said they were in favor of his victory. Clearly the President’s global popularity is greater than your perception.

        Last October the BBC World Service published a comprehensive survey taken in 21 countries. It tabulated the opinions of 21,797 respondents. Similar to the 2008 results, President Obama was preferred over his rival in 20 of the 21 countries. “Overall, an average of 50 per cent would prefer to see Obama elected, compared to only 9 per cent who prefer Romney.” {1} The survey also observed, “The emphatic preference for Obama’s re-election worldwide is in sharp contrast to the state of public opinion in the USA, where polls now show the two candidates to be nearly tied in public backing.” {2}

        Steven Kull is the Director of The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. He commented on the conclusions drawn from the data, “Obama’s election in 2008 led to a major recovery of America’s image in the world and people are showing little interest in changing horses now.” {3}

        Stephanie, I thought you might like to take a look at the details of the study to learn what the rest of the world really thinks about the President’s re-election. They do not seem to be laughing at the outcome at all.

        I thank you for sharing your thoughts in this thread.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ … 12_rpt.pdf
        {2} Ibid.
        {3} http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ … 28&lb=

        1. Hawaiian Scribe profile image92
          Hawaiian Scribeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I wrote:
          "Obama did nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.  Absolutely nothing.  The Nobel Peace Prize website states that he was given the award 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.  Really?  Where was I when this happened?  And how has it gone for him since?  Iran going nuclear, North Korea testing missiles and nuclear, Israel's Netanyahu can't stand him, 60K people killed in Syria since March 2011 and U.S. does nothing, Egypt on verge of government collapse, relationship with Russia's Putin deteriorating, Obama revs up Afghanistan war which is a sewer pit, Libyan extremists kill first American ambassador in 30 years, North Africa is now crawling with Al Qaeda...and on and on.  Is the world more peaceful today because of Barack Obama?  The world must be laughing at the U.S. to think that this man got re-elected."
          =================
          Good evening Quilligrapher.  This is the reason I hate to get pulled into these forums.  Meeting up with people like you who seem to have nothing better to do than to quote endless meaningless statistics.  Perhaps when I am retired I'll have more time to do what you do.  But in Obama's shrinking economy most of us have to work.
          Anyway, in response to your response, I just searched - 'what does the world think of Obama' and the following article came up.  http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … rstep?lite
          NBC is always in Obama's corner, but the following quotes seem to mirror most of the reasons I gave for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize.  I should not have presumed to think what "the world" thinks of Obama, but neither should you or a pollster.  Now we're getting as big-headed as he is. smile
          Quotes:
          However, NBC News' Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel said Obama should "enjoy his victory" now,  adding:"Starting very soon, the rest of the world will be crashing down on the president’s doorstep.”

          “You have the issue of Syria – a county that is imploding, and a conflict that could quickly spread to other countries in the region. You have the issue of Afghanistan, the war that is still ongoing. The expectation now is there will have to be a refocusing on Afghanistan to try and end that conflict.

          “There are many Israelis who are not keen on Barack Obama – they did not want to see him elected,” Engel added.

          Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has had a strained relationship with the American president over his policies on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, congratulated the president in a text message to reporters. "I will continue to work with President Obama to preserve the strategic interests of Israel's citizens," he said."
          "Would a Romney victory have made a difference to the situation in Afghanistan? Not much, according to Daoud Sultanzoy, political analyst in Kabul. "The bottom line would have been the same, I think - just their style of management would have been different.

          "Mr. Obama...said some things that were good but he didn’t do them, he didn’t fulfill his commitments when it came to transparencies, when it came to credibility of both side’s commitment and accountability.  He just paid lip service in the past four years and that has damaged the Afghan people."
          "In Iran, with whom relations are tense because of Tehran's nuclear program, the semiofficial Fars news agency rolled out the vivid headline, "Republican's elephant crushed by Democrat's donkey."

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hello again, Stephanie.

            It seems you made a false and misleading statement and you seem irritated at me for pointing it out to you. I see no need to apologize for my post but I am sorry that you over reacted to it. However, I must add that I see no significance in your pointing out how you are employed and I am not. 

            Your personal opinion about the President’s qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize is unimportant compared to the opinions of the committee members. Please note that I did not challenge or disagree with your many negative statements out of respect for your conclusions. You did, however, make a comment about world sentiment over the President’s re-election that was factually wrong and I provided a source supporting the opposite fact: a large number of non-Americans had responded they were, in deed, delighted by President Obama’s re-election. {2} I accept the fact you are one American that was not happy but that is hardly a good reason to presume “the world” agrees. Fortunately, the pollsters and I made an effort to learn the true facts.

            I am further puzzled but thankful for your link to the NBC News article. The title confirms the one and only point I was trying to make:  “World leaders welcome Obama's 2nd term.” {2}

            Again, I am sincerely sorry to see you over react. I admit I was wrong to imagine you would be receptive to just and accurate criticism.

            I thank you again for your participation in this thread.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ … 12_rpt.pdf
            {2} http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … rstep?lite

            1. Hawaiian Scribe profile image92
              Hawaiian Scribeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever..I am done with this thread. Obama, and you, are certainly not worth my time.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No you were right Hawaiian Scribe. Just because various polls claim that people prefer obama over romney is only opinion of which of those two candidates they prefer.  It was flagrantly dishonest and lacks  intellect to use it in that case. People in the world are laughing at obama getting elected despite that a poll may suggest that they like romney less.  I am laughing. Hundreds of millions of people that voted against him are laughing.

                I saw a poll where Nineteen percent of people questioned in the poll released Wednesday afternoon say Obama currently deserves the prize, with another 35 percent saying that it's likely he will eventually accomplish enough in office to deserve the award. Still, greater than four in 10 believe the president will never deserve the prize.http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/cnn-poll-does-obama-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize/

                It is laughable that the vast majority of that poll have to "speculate" on if he will ever do anything at all.

                1. Hawaiian Scribe profile image92
                  Hawaiian Scribeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks Phoenix V!  I got attracted to this forum by the question about Obama deserving (or not) the Nobel Peace Prize.  As a closeted Obama heckler living in the royal blue state of Hawaii, I totally underestimated the torrents that can be freed up on forums like these.  Yikes! 

                  Anyway, I think I'll get out of this lane of traffic for a while.  The Nobel Peace Prize committee clearly had Obamamania back in 2009 like many others did.  He didn't deserve it then or now.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Forums require a thick skin especially if the topic is religion or politics. Ya just gotta roll along a little. I would give anything to live in Hawaii. Especially around Na Pali if it were possible and its anything like it looks from videos I have seen. I could go there and live in paradise, fall off the societal grid. Maybe they could print me a new birth certificate, because after 50 years my second one is hardly legible. Tee hee

            2. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't address 99% of Hawaiian Scribe's post, but posted an irrelevant poll to Hawaiian Scribe's personal closing opinion. Hawaiian Scribe's final remark was a point of view or verbalization of the hypocrisy and not some statement of fact. But desperately you latch on to anything you can dig up, while you ignore the entire point they made and posted irrelevant polls-  then have the gall to call it accurate criticism that people are not being receptive to. Maybe they are just not receptive to BS.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Both Stephanie and I provided links that established the remark referring to President Obama’s re-election was untrue. Your willingness to accept and condone the false statement and to consider the facts as BS has been noted.

                I thank you both for your opinions. 
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. PhoenixV profile image80
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  On the contrary I am still laughing that obama was reelected. So Hawaii's statement was absolutely true.

                  I want to magnanimously thank you for your participation in this thread. With all sincerity, I look forward to rectifying your much appreciated participation, in the future.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Obama did nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. "

        So, why blame him? He didn't apply for it.

        1. 58
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Because he accepted it knowing he didn't deserve it!
          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7636008_f248.jpg

        2. Hawaiian Scribe profile image92
          Hawaiian Scribeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not blaming him.  I just said he did nothing to deserve it.

    7. greencha profile image67
      greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I hope you all don't mind me sticking my nose in here from UK,- But could it possibly be that  the same strings that pulled GWB is now pulling Barac.. re-different puppets same animater(s).

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the hypothetical animators have influence beyond the scope of the US, you have every right to comment.

        They all seem to have the same agendas.

  2. 58
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    Seems that GITMO is still open.

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I was reading somewhere that Obama has used 6 times more drone attacks or killed 6 times as many people with drones than the past president. Does anyone have any statistics on "if" or how many civilians have been killed by obama drones?

      1. 58
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know, but I am sure it doesn't make any difference to his supporters. He kills goodly.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am sure that there are lots of people that have promoted peace without using drone attacks and kill lists that deserve a peace prize.

          1. 58
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But he received the prize before he ever did anything.....anything

          2. The0NatureBoy profile image65
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They gave Obama his "peace prize" on the assumption that he was going to do the things he promised, not for anything he did prior to his administration.

            1. PhoenixV profile image80
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A Peace Prize for hypothetical or possible future acts?

              1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
                The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's what it was for.

                1. Petra Vlah profile image60
                  Petra Vlahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is the absurdity of it all.
                  Check out the process of getting on the list for being nominated as a possible recipient of  the Noble prize. The candidates are selected and the list closes on February 1-st of 2007 while the prize was awarded in March of 2009.
                  At the time Obama got on the list he was just a senator so I would very much want to know  WHO was that sure that he will be the next president.  The whole thing is hallucinating and all "explanations" are absurd.

                  Like it or not, we are being given a fixed hand

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this



                    Hello Petra. You must to talking about some other peace prize! I followed your advice and checked out the process. The Nobel Prize web site contradicts nearly everything you said.

                    The Noble prize is given for…

                    Let’s start with the falsehood in your first sentence, “The Noble prize is given for a lifelong achievement in a specific area.” I did not find that specification anywhere on the Nobel Prize web site. Therefore, you or someone else must have made it up. Here are a few true facts about the prize found on the Nobel Committee web site. “The Norwegian Nobel Committee never formally defined ‘peace,’ in practice it came to interpret the term ever more broadly. This approach could have its pitfalls, but avoided the danger of locking the committee into fixed categories and gave the committee flexibility to adapt to new concerns.” Interesting to note “flexibility to adapt to new concerns.

                    Throughout the years, the emphasis moved away from organized peace movements to include international jurists, church leaders, humanitarians, scientists, and even a Holocaust interpreter. “Different kinds of statesmen were awarded the Peace Prize, some for addressing global concerns, others for helping to solve regional crises, still others for the general principles they espoused. Interesting to note the part about “general principles they espoused

                    Getting on the list…

                    There seems to be a few other distortions in your post. If you have discovered sources that do not agree with information on the Nobel site please share them with us.

                    First, Candidates are not selected on February 1st. Nominations are closed on that date and the committee culls through the candidates to select the winner of the prize awarded that same year. “The Nobel Committee makes its selection on the basis of nominations received or postmarked no later than February 1 of the year in question. Nominations, which do not meet the deadline, are normally included in the following year's assessment. Members of the Nobel Committee are entitled to submit their own nominations…after the expiry of the deadline.” Interesting to note some nominations can be added after the February 1st deadline. {2}

                    You mistakenly said “the list closes on February 1-st of 2007 while the prize was awarded in March of 2009. At the time Obama got on the list he was just a senator."

                    This is a major error on your timeline. The prize was announced on October 9th, 2009. {3} President Obama had been chosen by a majority of Americans to lead the country more than a year earlier. He had been the acknowledged leader of the free world for nine months. During those 200 to 300 days he worked to repair the tattered image of US diplomacy; he went to Egypt hoping to convince the Muslim world the US was now about cooperation rather than conflict; and, he reestablished multilateralism as the template for U.S. foreign policy.

                    According to the rules, nominees for the peace prize are not made public for 50 years, yet, history reveals they are the worst kept secrets in the world. The nomination of Irena Sendler was officially acclaimed by the Polish Parliament in 2007 although Al Gore and the IPCC received the award for a slide show on global warming. Still, President Obama’s name may have been submitted before Feb. 1st or nominated by a committee member sometime later. In either event, your version of history is untrue.

                    Lastly, you left us with, “Like it or not, we are being given a fixed hand.

                    Like it or not, Petra, neither you nor I have been appointed to the Nobel Committee by the Norwegian Parliament. In the end, they decide who receives the Peace Prize and the world accepts their decision whether we agree or not.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ … ad-review/
                    {2} http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ … omination/
                    {3} http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ … ement.html

                  2. greencha profile image67
                    greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Petra Vlah -I agree thats,very odd..????,,,,....!!!!

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hi there Nature Boy. Welcome to Hubpages. I am looking forward to reading your first hub.

              I hope you do not mind if I correct your false statement above on our very first meeting. It is totally untrue. The prize was not based “on the assumption that he was going to do the things he promised.” If you want to know the real reason why the President was awarded the Peace Prize just go to the Nobel web site and read the diploma yourself:
              The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Barack H. Obama ‘for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.” {1}

              Following the announcement, Geir Lundestad, Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told senior editor Simon Frantz why President Barack Obama's creation of a new climate in international politics closely fulfils the statues of Alfred Nobel's will.” {2}

              I wish you success with your hubs on Hubpages.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} "The Nobel Peace Prize 2009". Nobelprize.org. 28 Jan 2013 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ … ates/2009/
              {2} "The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Prize Announcement". Nobelprize.org. 28 Jan 2013 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ … ement.html

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nothing says diplomacy, like a drone attack, I always say.

                1. habee profile image92
                  habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    smile

              2. The0NatureBoy profile image65
                The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This computer is blocked from seeing videos but I will keep this notice so I can come back here to see them, thanks for the official corrections although that was only the official reason given, what I said was the actual reason.  We both are correct, you the official and me the actual reason.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good Evening Nature Boy.

                  The links in my last post are not videos. They can be viewed on any web browser.

                  Also, would you care to share with us how you came to learn there is a secret reason other than the one stated by the Nobel Committee?

                  I think we would all be interested in knowing your source.

                  Thank you. Looking forward to you reply.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
                    The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Morning Quill,
                    There's the 1% of the 1% the Bible calls The Beast who are behind most thing concerning the United States' government.  They are responsible for grooming Obama for the presidency and wanted him to be loved world wide, is why they had him make the tour before getting in office.  Thus, the secret reason for giving it to him. 

                    At this time of the cycle in years past I was Obama and am now remembering many major event concerning him.

          3. greencha profile image67
            greenchaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your so so right,,,

      2. The0NatureBoy profile image65
        The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it's true that Obama stepped up the use of drones.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, that is what I heard, but its difficult to source such things. I also hear or read that not only did he step up the use of drones as far as quantity, but also widened the parameters on who he could drone. Before it was just supposed to be Al Qaeda. Now its Al Qaeda,  taliban etc  etc

          1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
            The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is also true that he expanded their use, that's why there are more being used.

  3. Teddletonmr profile image81
    Teddletonmrposted 3 years ago

    Obama breaks the law, supporters give him a pass...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmk5S6YFTLg

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They are probably trying to figure out how they can blame GWB for Obamas drone attacks and kill lists.

      1. 58
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Obama has to merely say its his fault and his supporters will agree.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have always believed that people that constantly blame others is just an admission of incompetence on their part.  In the private sector employers do not keep people that blame the last employee. They arent hired to shirk responsibility.

          1. 58
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Look at who voted for him and you will find your answer.

            1. Teddletonmr profile image81
              Teddletonmrposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What does that say about Americans that voted for Mr. Obama, or what I believe the better question? What about those where, apathy kept them from voting in the first place.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As adamant, vocal, fervent and emotional, liberals and democrats got if GWB spat on a sidewalk, its completely perplexing to me they are so quiet about obama drones and kill lists. All that killin and warmongering? And hardly a peep outa obama supporters.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Maybe because they know that no matter who would have been in power the program would continue.

    Talking behind people's backs is so tacky.

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It seems to conveniently only matter when a democrat or liberal is not in power. Then it matters a lot. A person cannot hardly avoid the ruckus of how much it matters, in my opinion. Add insult to injury theres a peace prize for them.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And conservatives who always told peace activists to love it or leave it now are peaceniks themselves now that Obama is in power.

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can only deduce that you concede or admit that they are being hypocritical in being "peaceniks" in light of obama using drones and having kill lists and how it is contradictory with being peaceful or deserving of peace prizes?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You will have to take that up with the Nobel committee. Of course it was ridiculous to give it to him, but he didn't ask for it.

  5. tammybarnette profile image60
    tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Nobel Peace Prize officials were facing a formal inquiry over accusations they have drifted away from the prize's original selection criteria by choosing such winners as President Barack Obama, as the nomination deadline for the 2012 awards closed Wednesday. The investigation comes after persistent complaints by a Norwegian peace researcher that the original purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.



    If the Stockholm County Administrative Board, which supervises foundations in Sweden's capital, finds that prize founder Alfred Nobel's will is not being honored, it has the authority to suspend award decisions going back three years — though that would be unlikely and unprecedented, said Mikael Wiman, a legal expert working for the county.



    Obama won in 2009, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won in 2010, and last year the award was split between Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian activist Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman of Yemen.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obamas-pe … estigation

    Obama should have never won the prize. As for the drone program, yes it is imperfect, however I would have to see data that supports it causes MORE civilian harm than boots on the ground before I would discount the program in it's entirity. We are heading toward a new age of technology in our military, which I hope will be a good thing. Although I am all for peace, I am a realist and recognize we must be a strong military nation in order to protect our citizens. The middle east is exploding, that is reality. What role we will take is yet to be realized. I am one dem who is happy to have a democratic president who is not soft on war or crime.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
      The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm coming from the US Constitution's perspective.  The Preamble demands our military to defend the USA and Amendment 2 says there's a need for defending our free nation.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say our military have the right to offend.  That suggest, if warriors comes on US territory we are to defend ourselves, the United States is never to be the AGGRESSOR in any military action which Obama continued even after saying he would end the war during his campaign. 

      What the Constitution implies is the US Military is to always be on US soil and the Navy in international waters around our nation only, not even the waters around the American continent.  Therefore, the US has no constitutional right to do anything in the middle east.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So I assume you believe all of our President's before who have engaged in wars abroad were acting unconstitutionally?

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's not an ass-u-me, it's a fact.  By the reading of it the United states should have been only the 13 original states and the Louisiana purchase.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Tammy. You did not mention the inquiry ended several weeks later.
      OSLO | Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:24pm EDT
      OSLO (Reuters) - The Nobel Foundation has defended the award of its annual Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, Yemeni rights campaigner Tawakul Karman and others by persuading a Swedish regional body that the awards remained consistent with its founder's wishes.

      The County Administrative Board of Stockholm said on Thursday in an emailed statement that it had received a reply from the Nobel Foundation which supported its view that the foundation "fulfils its obligation to examine how the Nobel committees work".

      It added that it believed the foundation was ready to act if the Norwegian Nobel Committee -- which awards the Peace Prize -- was deemed to not be fulfilling the rules stipulated in the will of founder Alfred Nobel.

      "Therefore there is currently no reason for the County Administrative Board to further intervene against the foundation's work...and the matter is to be closed," the board said in the statement emailed to Reuters.


      I love happy endings. big_smile
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Quill, Thanks for the update, I love happy endings as well smile I can always count on you too show up with the fcts Quill, you add so much to every forum. I always try to explore beefs from the right and see their point of view as I know astrong left needs a strong right for our country to function properly; and I want to know the truth always no matter who is in the big chair. I am happy to hear this worked out well smile

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
          The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Tammy,
          If your country is the US then what we need is a strong "middle path" or "straight gated narrow way" person in the Administrative branch who "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Article 2, section 3).  Having a "left" and "right" rather than a "middle way" leader is the reason for the problems in this nation.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Very well articulated point, and I agree, that we must meet in the center...We must always however, be careful to have at least  a left and right, and would be even better to have many in-betwee,, in order to always provide a check and balance and never create a one party system.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image65
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Tammy!

              There will always be lefties and righties but there has never been a middle way leader of this nation, it's time we get one.  And http://www.change.org/petitions/elimina … after_sign is the only means I know of getting one.

      2. 58
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You love fairy tales.

  6. Superkev profile image86
    Superkevposted 3 years ago

    Here's the version that no one can dispute....Obama got this award for f**k all. He had done nothing to deserve even a nomination much less the actual award.

    Part-time Illinois legislator and part-time college lecturer, half-term US Senator all with no notable achievements on his part. Oh, he did write two books.......about himself.

    And his half-baked narcissism and policies continue to this day.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lawyer, Community Organizer, Constitutional Law Professor, President of Harvard Law Review...yea he is so unaccomplished roll  I always thought the fact he wasn't a career politician was a positive thing smile

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        None of that has anything to do with a Nobel Peace Prize

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yea a lawyer that uses drones and has kill lists. Major accomplishments. Peace and diplomacy. My ***

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's ironic that so many people have no qualms at all about yelling 'racism racism racism!' all they want, but they refuse to accept the fact that Obama's race was a factor for many who DID vote for him... even when people admitted that they were voting for him because he's black, YOU would be the racist one for pointing that out.

            The Nobel Peace Prize will never mean anything again... it's like cycling, it's been completely ruined.

            1. tammybarnette profile image60
              tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

              The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

              Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

              Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

              For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

              Oslo, October 9, 2009
              http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ … press.html

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So he didnt do anything but "captured the world's attention and given its people hope " and got the prize almost at the same time he became president. Then he used drones and has kill lists. Lovely. That is not diplomacy.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh yeah, we're practically nuke free already!

                It's not like the largest terrorist groups and tyrants are working to get and improve their nuclear programs. Obama just sat down across the table from Iran, and they stopped pushing for nukes to wipe Israel off the map with!

                Face it. Obama was(and is) considered supernatural by the left. Like Biden said, 'He's like a story-book man'.

                1. tammybarnette profile image60
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Jaxson and V, I didn't give him the prize..He actually qualified as of 2009 and that is probably why the decision stood...It is so odd to hear Republicans blasting a strong Commander in Chief

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not a republican. But I understand the zealous devotion some people have despite the obvious    
                    hypocrisy . As far as blasting , thats a term best used for the dronees not anyone that posts the facts about the  droner.  I cant wait till he is called a victim.

  7. crazyhorsesghost profile image86
    crazyhorsesghostposted 3 years ago

    No matter who or what party is in power the US should use anything and everything in their arsenal to take out Muslim Extremists. If not we may end up with another smoking hole in the ground in New York City.

    Yes the Muslim Extremists did it. No there is no US Government conspiracy blowing up our own buildings. How stupid can people get.


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7635040_f248.jpg

    If I'm not mistaken that is a jet piloted by Muslim Extremists about to strike the building. We must as a people do everything we can to stop people like this. We must use everything we have to wipe these kind of people from the earth. Or it will happen again.

    I'm really surprised that it hasn't happened again already. If they are not stopped it will happen agian and again.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You're acting as if Muslim extremists are the only extremists that we should be worried about.  What about the Christian extremists who want to turn America into a Dark Ages-esque theocracy?

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. 247,000,000 american are demanding we install a Priest for President. Get rid of the Constitution and install Mosaic Law. Then we woke up and joined reality

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          >implying "extremist" means "every single one of them"

          Do you even know what an extremist is?

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I used the example of 200 million americans demanding we install a Preacher and use Mosaic law, because conversely  there are examples such as Iran for instance where there pretty much is a combination of Theocracy and sharia law to a large extent.

            There is nothing like that in the US. Never has been, never will be. Just throwing extraordinary claims out there means nothing if you cant back it up  FYI.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Extremists are, by their definition, small splinter groups. If you've never heard the cries for America to become a theocracy, then I'm not surprised. Because, you know, small groups aren't usually seen by all. But they're out there. And they're nuts.

              But on a side note, I always find it funny that Christians get worried about Sharia Law. Sharia Law doesn't affect them (you?), because the Muslims include both Christians and Jews as being among the "people of the Book." The only people who really should be afraid of Sharia Law are those who don't follow any of those 3 religions.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You implied that theocracies are bad and that anyone that would support one or try to install one is an extremist.  You make the claim there are some doing that in the USA. Do you have any comment on the 75,000,000 people in Iran that are currently in a more or less  theocracy?

                If its any consolation to you I do not support droning people to death. Bring them to justice. Find them innocent or guilty, or declare war on their country if that is the will of the republic/democracy.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Do you have any comment on the 75,000,000 people in Iran that are currently in a more or less  theocracy?"

                  But of course! A lot of them are dissatisfied with it, and are generally leading unsatisfactory lives under an oppressive religious government that devotes its entire time to emigrating and/or killing Jews.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Speaking of large groups of dissatisfied people, It is a shame that large groups of people are cannon fodder to governments, whatever the flavor of the government.  What do you think?

  8. SpanStar profile image59
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news … n-al-qaeda

    The above website provided some interesting points of view regarding drones in the use of drones which I hadn't thought of. One point brought up is the world isn't sure  if the use of drones are even legal or not.

    America's military marks the drones as a very good tool to use against our enemies. How will we feel when the day comes where our enemies drones will be flying in the skies of Americans cities?

    Should the drones be utilized strictly on the battlefield or are civilian cities also fair game?

 
working