• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acception speech

he's a phony
 
Again for my left wing friends, How does he earn the Nobel Prize when the nomination were sent in on Feb 1 and he took office on 20 January.....What did he do in the short period of time to even earn the nomination? I will be waiting for your answer but I don't think I will get one....................
 
Last edited:
Again for my left wing friends, How does he earn the Nobel Prize when the nomination were sent in on Feb 1 and he took office on 20 January.....What did he do in the short period of time to even earn the nomination? I will be waiting for your answer but I don't think I will get one....................

First you need to show where "your left wing friends" are saying he did deserve the speech. The closest you have is some one showing why the committee chose him, and even she questioned whether he was deserving. Even Obama is not making the claim he should have gotten it: Obama: I don't deserve Nobel prize | Metro.co.uk.

Mr Obama said he doesn’t doubt there are others who may be more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

He said: "It was a great surprise to me. I have no doubt that there are others who may be more deserving."

Now, do you care to talk about what "your left wing friends" are actually saying, or are you going to continue to make up what they are saying?
 
SgtRock's commentary on the President's speech is not "breaking news".

Where are the mods in this forum??:confused:

Moderator's Warning:
Right here...telling you that you cannot comment on issues of moderation publicly, like this.
 
First you need to show where "your left wing friends" are saying he did deserve the speech. The closest you have is some one showing why the committee chose him, and even she questioned whether he was deserving. Even Obama is not making the claim he should have gotten it: Obama: I don't deserve Nobel prize | Metro.co.uk.



Now, do you care to talk about what "your left wing friends" are actually saying, or are you going to continue to make up what they are saying?

Well if he felt he did not deserve it why didn't he turn it down so they could give it to someone that did deserve it........
 
Well if he felt he did not deserve it why didn't he turn it down so they could give it to someone that did deserve it........

Why should he? Turning it down would only serve as ammo for those who choose to find any fault.....
 
because he doesn't deserve it

2 + 2

you and he already said so yourselves

He did not request it, he did not lobby for it, he made no effort to attain it. He was chosen for it, and as this thread shows, some are going to criticize him over it no matter what he does about it. Take the award that the people whose vote on whether he should get it or not count decided he should get, and see that the prize money goes to a charity(or charities) that he supports.
 
great

congrats

i guess
 
While perhaps it would be quite easy for me to take a cynical view of the speech, and cite examples where it appears Obama may be trying to seek political points, and particularly serve the global warming agenda through a long range equation of how it promotes world peace, including asserting it as overwhelming consensus scientific fact, I would prefer to take his words with an objective view and note the concepts contained in them and how much impact they could have from a global stage delivered to all nations in the world.

It is obviously premature to give such an award to someone with little by way of accomplishment towards peace. Obama definitely compensated for this by offering three ways to promote world peace.

Creating stronger ties between nations to deter the unscrupulous actions of regimes, such as nuclear proliferation and genocide, in unison - acting as an internatioonal juggernaut, is essential in persuading such despots to practice restraint.

Insistence on human rights in all nations is vital to allow the varying religious followings to co-exist, where it is all to obvious the repercussions where such intolerance exists.

Investing in a nation's education, agriculture and overall economies is also a vital ingredient to long range peace, evidenced by our failure to do so in Afghanistan earlier.

All in all, it was a profound speech and may well be an important page in history. Obama's intellect went beyond the reading of words from a teleprompter. He understands the motives behind our actions in the middle east and beyond, and shed more light on these areas for me and the world. His leadership showed in this speech will hopefully bring greater cooperation from other countries in our efforts in Afghanistan, and thus bring our troops home sooner. Moreover, with stronger effort by all nations towards the ideals he covered, future situations like the one in Afghanistan will be dramatically reduced.
 
Last edited:
He understands the motives behind our actions in the middle east and beyond

unfortunately, were that true, he wouldn't have spent so much of his first year in every possible international venue apologizing for everything american

he wouldn't have pledged personal diplomacy with ahmedinejad

he would have offered support for the popular uprisings in the streets of tehran, both in june and this month

he's STILL silent about the freedom movements inside iran

he wouldn't allow himself so humiliatingly to be seen as the plaything of putin and hu

he wouldn't have appeared so indecisive when it comes to afghanistan

he wouldn't be totally incoherent there---changing his rhetoric from "exit" to "conditions based" to "transition" to "glide path"

he wouldn't have disputed with his commanders and defense secretary in public

he wouldn't have leaked so many contrary resolutions

he wouldn't be trying to get at al qaeda in pakistan by taking on the taliban next door

you can't divorce the words from the man

but i'll grant you, for what they're worth---they were good words
 
We have a real enigma here. We have a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize, but won't sign the declaration against land mines. I guess you could say that Obama's entire presidency will be known as an oxymoron. :mrgreen:
 
Obama is attempting to please everyone and in turn is pissing everyone off. By attempting to appease the insignificant far left wing of his party he was begining to alienate the rest of the Dems. But this speech shows a different side of Obama. A hawkish side if you will. Perhaps he is learning on the job that the world is a **** hole and as the leader of the free world he has a responsibility to his nation and the world to continue underwriting global security.
 
I just find it ironic that some observers hope this will solidify international support for a war...he's receiving a Nobel "Peace" Prize. Now...I'm sorry...had this been a Bush-like award winner, the Left and media would comment on what a war monger the President is speaking of war even while accepting an honor for peace.

I happen to agree with much of what he said. I realize it was read off of a teleprompter, I realize it may have not been sincere, and I didn't understand the date for withdrawl and what that means. He's the only one that could have made that acceptance speech as far as the media and Democrat Party are concerned, do we all realize that?
 
Last edited:
I just find it ironic that some observers hope this will solidify international support for a war...he's receiving a Nobel "Peace" Prize. Now...I'm sorry...had this been a Bush-like award winner, the Left and media would comment on what a war monger the President is speaking of war even while accepting an honor for peace.

Yeah but the general idea of Obama's Afghanistan plan is to end the war. Of course that is debatable, but it is better than the inconclusiveness of conservative views on the war.


Also I don't understand some of the criticism. I thought a lot of people accepted the fact that Obama wanted more troops in Afghanistan before he was elected. Now they are complaining?
 
Also I don't understand some of the criticism. I thought a lot of people accepted the fact that Obama wanted more troops in Afghanistan before he was elected. Now they are complaining?

This is a question I have asked before. How is Obama suddenly hawkish when he ran on a platform of increased emphasis on Afghanistan?
 
Yeah but the general idea of Obama's Afghanistan plan is to end the war. Of course that is debatable, but it is better than the inconclusiveness of conservative views on the war.

I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the inconclusiveness of conservative views on war....and being a Conservative, I find that odd. Reality reveals quite clearly that Conservatives share the conclusive view on war, perhaps you missed the Bush Admin's insistence on remaining in Iraq for example...rather than prematurely pulling out. I stand rather confused on your comment here, care to explain?

Also I don't understand some of the criticism. I thought a lot of people accepted the fact that Obama wanted more troops in Afghanistan before he was elected. Now they are complaining?

I think you'll find many supporting this endeavor wholeheartedly. Not sure why ot took 6 months to make a decision, not sure why a date was given, and am flabbergasted at the deafening silence coming from the anti-war Left so enraged for the last 6 years.

And promise you this. Republicans won't play funding games. We won't set timelines and benchmarks. No 'war is lost' statements, no absolute treachery and treason from the Hill against the Commander in Chief. Should there be any, I would hope my fellow Con/repubs would throttle down, the Congress doesn't wage war, the President does.

Mind you, I'll take this post I'm replying to as a joke, you would call asking for clarity "criticism", I'd like to know what you called the Democrat Congress from 2006-2008 while two wars were being waged. Two wars voted on and for by so many in that same Congress.
 
This is a question I have asked before. How is Obama suddenly hawkish when he ran on a platform of increased emphasis on Afghanistan?

Who is criticizing Obama for being hawkish? Who from the Right is voicing their opposition specifically to the increase in troop strength?

Where is your anti-war Left is the question. Where are those with give peace a chance and hope and change negotiation? Where are those who voiced that this solution only served to create more terrorists? That this solution only caused them to hate us more? Where is the outrage when Obama is launching hellfire missiles from Predator Drones into Pakistan killing civilians?

I think the criticism of his foreign policy that you're obviously missing focuses on the following.

1) His decision to bring enemy combatants into the US and try them in NY
2) His lack of timely decision making such as his decisions in Afghanistan
3) The obvious fact that he's following Bush's policies concerning Iraq, the Patriot Act, and rights for prisoners abroad. Without a sound from your aisle.

The silence from the Left is deafening regarding these three issues.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom