Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Peace Prize
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2, 3
dakini_painter
I think it's kind of strange that President Obama got the Noble Peace Prize for not really accomplishing much. I know there's still lots of Hope for Peace, but so far Iraq continues it's craziness (though with less US participation), Afghanistan+Pakistan rages on, the chaos that is Somalia continues unabated, the Israel-Palestinian problem is still very stuck, Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest and the Generals of Burma continue to plunder the nation's wealth. I could add a hundred other world problems to the list.

Is it possible there was no one else worthy? Or was it the Noble Committee's way of saying we want you to live up to the ideals of the Peace Prize?

I'm all for the guy, but I just don't understand.
speedle
It's a strategic gesture. The Peace Prize is, a) occasionally used for just such a purpose, and b) really the only Nobel Prize you could do something like that with, i.e. use it as a prod and shield of imprimatur.
Donnie Darko
The explanation is simple. Bush set the standards so incredibly low that Obama's mere advocacy of policy that may lead to a more peaceful future was enough to win him the Prize. I think the Nobel committee said "What? An American President doesn't want to precipitate more global conflict? Unheard of! Give that man a trophy!". To Obama's credit, he seemed as surprised as any of us.

But I think in this instance the prize was intended as a motivator to carry out proposed actions rather than a reward for past action, as Speedle pointed out. Is there anything wrong with using a high profile award to encourage nuclear disarmament, diplomatically dealing with Iran, and the US re-embracing the global community? No, in my book there isn't.

As a side note, I still have yet to hear one person reasonably explain to me what is so bad about Obama, in spite of the fact that the news makes it looks like there's a lot of people out there who are terrified of the man and his agenda. I mean aside from the fact that he wants the government to rule everyone's lives in an Orwellian fashion, wants to destroy medicare, wants to give illegal immigrants your first born child, and wants to use the healthcare system to kill your loved ones (insert any other hysterically childish accusation dispensed from the Fox lie-o-matic here), he seems like an OK guy to me.
Kirk
He can have my first born, as long as he lets me on the conspiracy.

Where you been , anyway, I miss your informed read.
Patlow
Edit: This is too important to respond to drunk. I will say how I feel tomorrow.
hobgoblin
It's a bit like positive reinforcement used in schools. A kid from a 'rough family' with a troubled background, known as a family that likes to lash out and cause violent mayhem. His older brother has just been through the school and he caused all sorts or hell on the playground. Give the new kid a reward for being in the school for a whole term without having hospitalised anyone yet (then cross your fingers nervously and hope the kid continues like this).
OCvertDe
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 9 2009, 11:51 PM) *
But I think in this instance the prize was intended as a motivator to carry out proposed actions rather than a reward for past action, as Speedle pointed out. Is there anything wrong with using a high profile award to encourage nuclear disarmament, diplomatically dealing with Iran, and the US re-embracing the global community? No, in my book there isn't.

Good intentions without productive activity never got anyone anywhere.
I don't really give two shits about the Nobel, and I have nothing against Obama, but I don't understand the logic behind this. Normally rewards are given out for accomplishments, not pipe dreams. It's sad that anyone thinks the man elected to the most powerful position in this country needs to be schmoozed, coddled and stroked into bringing about the changes he had the audacity to hope for.
After their choice a couple years back I shouldn't be surprised that you don't even have to do anything to win anymore, but at least Gore made a crappy movie for his pat on the back. At this point I'd rather hear that Obama won the prize simply for not being Bush. There are still a few out there who haven't been the Prez yet after all, so I suppose he deserves some recognition for squeezing in the Oval between them…
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(OCvertDe @ Oct 10 2009, 08:27 AM) *

Normally rewards are given out for accomplishments, not pipe dreams. It's sad that anyone thinks the man elected to the most powerful position in this country needs to be schmoozed, coddled and stroked into bringing about the changes he had the audacity to hope for.


Is the award only schoomzing, coddling and stroking? Are awards only allowed to have negative connotations? Call me an optimist, but I think positive reinforcement of an agenda-in-the-works might help forward that agenda. I just don't see what's so out of line about giving an award that is for promoting peace to someone who is trying very hard to promote peace. Besides, Obama is giving the money to charity, so I'm curious as to what is so lousy about him being given the award. I personally like the state department's response: "Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes"

QUOTE
After their choice a couple years back I shouldn't be surprised that you don't even have to do anything to win anymore, but at least Gore made a crappy movie for his pat on the back.


Actually Davis Guggenheim made that movie. And it's not like Obama hasn't done anything. I find it sad that journalists the world over are defining the stakes of Obama's presidency as whether or not he has accomplished his entire agenda in 9 months of being President. It's like they're all salivating over the idea of declaring ambition to be a failure. What? You haven't rid the world of nuclear weapons or passed health care reform and already nine months have passed? Let's show the latest poll numbers designed to show that America is losing confidence in such lofty ambitions. See, only half of Americans now like Obama. He failed. Wooot!



QUOTE(Kirk @ Oct 10 2009, 12:31 AM) *

He can have my first born, as long as he lets me on the conspiracy.

Where you been , anyway, I miss your informed read.


I've been absent because I'm learning.
Tibro
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 10 2009, 03:33 PM) *

Call me an optimist, but I think positive reinforcement of an agenda-in-the-works might help forward that agenda. I just don't see what's so out of line about giving an award that is for promoting peace to someone who is trying very hard to promote peace.

Okay, You're an optimist. In the main, I don't disagree with your sentiments. In the specifics though I'm left scratching my head that there wasn't a nominee that had accomplished something worthy of the prize. There are a lot of unsung folks devoting their lives to promoting peace and working hard at it. Maybe their failure was not to have been elected U.S. president in the wake of Bush's term of indeterminancy towards peaceful co-existence?

Yeah, I like the guy, but I'm still a bit stunned. I'm even wondering if this works for him or against him in the big picture as he moves forward with this around his neck. I hope he believes in the lasting value and meaning of this historical endowment. Obama better use it or people (and leaders) are going to use it against him. It may have just made things tougher for him.
OCvertDe
Wow… Tibro just said, almost word for word, exactly what I was thinking. I'll just leave it at that then.
hobgoblin
The Nobel Peace Prize has been completely devalued. Lech Walesa was right when he said about Obama' being given the prize “Well, there’s hasn’t been any contribution to peace yet. He’s proposing things, he’s initiating things, but he is yet to deliver”. Should the Nobel Prize for Literature be given to an author for a great book he hasn't yet written, but may have the potential to? Of course not. Neither should the Nobel Peace Prize be given to someone who hasn't yet achieved anything, but may have the potential to. Give it to him after he's achieved something for fuck's sake.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Oct 10 2009, 12:44 PM) *

The Nobel Peace Prize has been completely devalued. Lech Walesa was right when he said about Obama' being given the prize “Well, there’s hasn’t been any contribution to peace yet. He’s proposing things, he’s initiating things, but he is yet to deliver”.


Yeah, Lech nailed it. Why hasn't Obama already disarmed the world's nuclear arsenal, disarmed Iran and brought peace to Israel and Palestine in the 9 months he has been president? I mean, if the man can't singlehandedly do all those things in 9 months, then he certainly doesn't deserve any award.

Boy, what a worthless piece of shit prize.
Tibro
The question is not why hasn't Obama done all these things, but rather isn't there someone who has accomplished something concrete to promote the well-being and healthy, peaceful co-existence of humanity in all its forms and manifestations of division and divisiveness in the past year? There really must be some other folks in the trenches who have been knocking themselves out without getting any recognition. Is the field really this barren? Or is the hope for what Obama can accomplish so out-sized that nothing else is visible?
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Tibro @ Oct 10 2009, 11:35 AM) *

I'm even wondering if this works for him or against him in the big picture as he moves forward with this around his neck.


Is it really reasonable to spin the awarding of a prize intended to promote peace into such a negative thing? Does everybody thinks Obama should give it back and only accept it if he manages to rid the world of nuclear weapons, disarm Iran and solve the Israel/Palestine conflict? It's a lot easier to sit by and treat other's efforts with skepticism than it is to try to do something very difficult but noble. I say congratulations to Obama, which is normally the word one would use when someone wins a prize, as opposed to "my condolences" or "you don't deserve it".
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Tibro @ Oct 10 2009, 03:05 PM) *

There really must be some other folks in the trenches who have been knocking themselves out without getting any recognition. Is the field really this barren? Or is the hope for what Obama can accomplish so out-sized that nothing else is visible?


You raise totally valid points there. I personally would prefer the unsung heroes to be recognized, but given that the world views the president as the most influential person on earth, I don't think it's unreasonable to salute him for pursuing an agenda of peace now (and hopefully negotiating actual peace in the future).

And FWIW, reversing Bush's plan to build a missile shield in Poland is already one thing Obama has done that is a step towards peace, so Lech Walesa is wrong when he says "there hasn't been any contribution towards peace yet".
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 10 2009, 07:53 PM) *

Yeah, Lech nailed it. Why hasn't Obama already disarmed the world's nuclear arsenal, disarmed Iran and brought peace to Israel and Palestine in the 9 months he has been president? I mean, if the man can't singlehandedly do all those things in 9 months, then he certainly doesn't deserve any award.

Boy, what a worthless piece of shit prize.


Nobody's really expecting him to do all that in 9 months, but until he does something that yields some results then he doesn't really deserve a Nobel Peace prize. What has Obama actually achieved yet that makes him worthy of being awarded a Nobel Peace prize?

Awarding Obama the Nobel Peace prize is a bit like awarding an athlete a gold medal because he looks good in training.
Donnie Darko
I don't think that makes the prize worthless though. It just expands the intent behind the prize. If the point of the prize is to encourage and reward peace-building efforts, then I think giving it to Obama does that and will also continue to promote that. It's an interesting approach. Is it more productive for future prospects of peace to give pats on the back to those who already achieved some modicum of peace wherever they were pursuing it, or is it more productive to give encouragement and support to those currently pursuing an agenda of peace? The answer is both, but I think it was appropriate given the global situation to aim the award at the future rather than past achievements this time.

Given the very wobbly state of the world over the last 8 years, it's smart for a peace promoting organization to throw support behind the person that seems to have the best chance of spreading peace in the near future. Had our country not started two wars (one absurd, one that was justified but undermined by the absurd one) and pursued an agenda of drawing lines in the sand over diplomacy (imagine the escalation we'd be facing if McCain had won!), then there probably would be no need to give an award for efforts to achieve future peace. But given the circumstances Obama walked into, the sigh of relief heard around the world when he got elected, and the abrupt about-face in much of the tone and foreign policy we've already witnessed, I think the award is warranted.

It is absolutely great to give awards to unsung heroes who have struggled against adversity and achieved peace. But I think it's also great to throw high profile support behind those whose work is not yet done, because maybe that will help it get done. Maybe it won't, but we can't see into the future, so I think it's worth a shot.

Provenance
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Oct 10 2009, 11:20 AM) *
What has Obama actually achieved yet that makes him worthy of being awarded a Nobel Peace prize?

QUOTE
US missile strike kills 60 at funeral in Pakistan
Local official says half of the dead were civilians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/2…strike-pakistan
G&C
No worries.
If they all aren't militant, they will soon be.

Then they'll all be fair game.
Donnie Darko
Actually that's a pretty smart strategy to bomb a funeral for a Taliban commander. Tasteless? Sure. But would you go to a funeral for a Taliban commander? If you did, even if you aren't a gun wielding militant (which makes you a civilian), then that means you probably support the Taliban. Supporting the Taliban doesn't mean that one should be killed, but I don't think we'd be wringing our hands if KKK supporters got killed at a funeral of a Grand Wizard who had lynched a lot of blacks.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 12 2009, 04:00 AM) *

But I think it's also great to throw high profile support behind those whose work is not yet done, because maybe that will help it get done. Maybe it won't, but we can't see into the future, so I think it's worth a shot.


Considering Obama was inaugurated on 20th January and the nomination for him as Nobel Peace Prize was made on 1st February, not only was his work for peace not yet done, but it wasn't even started. The guy had only been in office 11 days; what the fuck did he do in those 11 days to warrant him being given arguably the greatest award available for work towards peace? All people had to go on was his election manifesto, and we all know how hollow those can prove to be.

I know you are a great fan of his Donnie, but the nomination was in 11 days after he got elected. What did he achieve in those 11 days that was such a great contribution to peace? People need to earn awards, not just be given one because the people giving the award didn't like your predecessor.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 12 2009, 06:11 PM) *

Actually that's a pretty smart strategy to bomb a funeral for a Taliban commander. Tasteless? Sure. But would you go to a funeral for a Taliban commander? If you did, even if you aren't a gun wielding militant (which makes you a civilian), then that means you probably support the Taliban. Supporting the Taliban doesn't mean that one should be killed, but I don't think we'd be wringing our hands if KKK supporters got killed at a funeral of a Grand Wizard who had lynched a lot of blacks.


I don't know the breakdown of the dead, but its likely that there would have been a number of children amongst the dead. Are they fair game now too Donnie?

So it would be fine to bomb a funeral of a KKK Grand Wizard killing all mourners, including children? I guess they'd just grow up to be clan members anyway so why not wipe them out when they're young?

Not everyone at a paramilitary funeral is a gunman or will become one. That is something I do have some firsthand knowlege of. People attend for all sorts of reasons, since a dead paramilitary is not just a dead paramilitary, but a dead person with more than one dimension to his life, and will have all sorts of relationships and links with all sorts of people for different reasons, therefore not all the mourners will have links to the paramilitary organisation (or even be active supporters). It will be no different at the funeral of a Taliban commander.
Kirk
QUOTE
but I don't think we'd be wringing our hands if KKK supporters got killed at a funeral of a Grand Wizard who had lynched a lot of blacks.

You are advocating for the killing of people for a mere association with beliefs you do not agree with, regardless of the rule of law and reason. Funerals attract many people, mourners as well as lobbyists.
That is worse than anarchy, more like fascism.
I would certainly be wringing my hands if the police started killing funeral attendees in this country.
I can think of several groups that have been vilified through the use of propaganda, how do you intend to decide who is who?
Maybe we should kill all the pot growers and their families, after all, they are supporting the terrorists.
dakini_painter
Some time ago one of the locals dicsovered that I was a peacenik (as he called me). He had been on the board which approved my business operating within the village. He told me that if he'd know of my political persuasion, he wouldn't have voted for my business (which he had done).

He tried to argue with me that "there's always someone out there that wants to kill you" so that justifies (and requires) that war will always be necessary and it's best to strike at them first. I wasn't in the mood to argue, so I let him harangue me.

But to my mind, this kind of thinking leads to the mentality of killing everyone that's different, because sooner or later, they're going to be out to get you.

I can't say my mind is immune from this. I wish I was so advanced a human being.

I think the kind of tactics the US and its allies have resorted to show how much of a failure our policies actually are. We don't know how to win, so we resort to killing everyone within reach, so long as you can label one of the dead as a "bad guy".

Regarding a KKK person, I think arresting him and having a trial (hopefully fair) would be a better solution than killing him and all his friends and family.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Oct 12 2009, 01:29 PM) *

I know you are a great fan of his Donnie, but the nomination was in 11 days after he got elected. What did he achieve in those 11 days that was such a great contribution to peace? People need to earn awards, not just be given one because the people giving the award didn't like your predecessor.


He didn't do anything to promote peace in his entire life prior to the day he was nominated? I didn't realize the man was only 11 days old (good one getting roped in by the clueless Republican Mike Huckabee argument by the way).

For one, he firmly spoke out as a Senator against the Iraq war when nearly everyone in his party was too chickenshit to do so. And he's been advocating nuclear disarmament since forever ago. It just so happens that now he has a lot more power and thus is much more likely to get something done in the arena of promoting peace, which obviously is going to take longer than 9 months of being president. Of course to get something done, one cannot go it alone most of the time, so I think having the support of the Nobel committee and as much of the rest of the world as possible helps. I don't think anybody on the Nobel committee will tell you this award is only for things he's done in the past anyway. It's an impetus to further action.

Let me know when you've come up with an explanation for why that is so bad.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Kirk @ Oct 12 2009, 02:12 PM) *

You are advocating for the killing of people for a mere association with beliefs you do not agree with, regardless of the rule of law and reason. Funerals attract many people, mourners as well as lobbyists.


Reread my post. I absolutely do not advocate such a thing. See the sentence that contains the statement "supporting the Taliban does not mean you should be killed".

I'm just saying that if supporters of the Taliban are collateral damage, I don't think that's such a big blow to peace. If some people who died had nothing to do with anything Taliban and just went to the funeral because they liked the Taliban commander as a person, well that's sad and a tragic loss of human life. But then we should never drop bombs because somebody who isn't a bad guy might accidentally get killed. We've been doing it since we had bombs, and the target of that particular bomb certainly didn't object to the boundless murder of civilians. Either we should stop dropping bombs altogether, or we should accept that an unfortunate side effect of trying to kill monsters in order to make the world more peaceful (yes, killing as many Taliban as possible would make the world more peaceful) is going to result in some non-militants getting killed also.

It's not pretty, and I would prefer a nicer option if there was one, but until somebody comes up with a better option (no, negotiating with genocidal theocrats is not a better idea), it's what we got. And we already tried not killing them. All that resulted in was them ruining the entire country of Aghanistan, sentencing women to be gang-raped or murdered if they were caught reading a book, and slaughtering any man whose beard wasn't the right length. So obviously NOT killing them isn't such a good idea….
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(dakini_painter @ Oct 12 2009, 06:17 PM) *

Regarding a KKK person, I think arresting him and having a trial (hopefully fair) would be a better solution than killing him and all his friends and family.


It's no surprise we weren't able to arrest that Taliban commander given that the Taliban surround themselves with civilian murdering thugs and also tend to kill policemen. And we also don't have single person sized bombs, so I think we did the best we could.

Collateral damage is never desirable, but if supporters of people who make it their mission #1 to kill civilians end up as collateral damage, that's just not as bad as the alternative, which is to allow the Taliban fuckhead to go about his merry way until we can send in some cops to put some cuffs on just him while leaving everyone else but him alone. Once we've helped the Afghanis build a country in which there is a rule of law and in which there is not a popular organization whose modus operandi is the murder of civilians, then maybe arresting the guy will be the best/most practical choice. But I wonder how many civilians might have perished had we not wiped out that guy along with some of his supporters? It's unfortunate some real innocents died, but should we have just let the guy continue on unimpeded?

I think your ideals of peace and justice are admirable, and definitely the right way to go in our country, just not very realistic in this instance.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Kirk @ Oct 12 2009, 02:12 PM) *

That is worse than anarchy, more like fascism.


You mean like what the Taliban commander and his dead comrades advocated? (which is not at all what I'm advocating).

QUOTE
Maybe we should kill all the pot growers and their families, after all, they are supporting the terrorists.


Actually could we start with skewering babies on pikes? You all know how much I like murdering babies, which of course since I eat them, is more humane than cooking them alive. OK, I admit that maybe just maybe I'll rape a couple of them before I put them on pikes, but I'll put most of them on pikes so quick they won't even feel it.

Anybody else got more absurd hyperbole up their sleeve?
Kirk
Collateral damage never helps the cause, when a mustard plant goes to seed, do you expect one mustard plant to grow from it?
Kirk
You go boy, heads on pikes,
I love it
makes great fertilizer.
Kirk
Everyone knows, cooking them alive is more tasty.
Kirk
Where the fuck is it that you figured the truth from, anyway, the xit they feed us is so complex, the best of us could not say who should die
from hell fire
from the sky
who the fuck are you
anyway?
Kirk
Oh yeah, give it to me baby,
we'll all be dead (sooner than you think or hope for, anyway)
Donnie Darko
I think the guy who makes it his agenda to murder innocent people is the most guilty, then the people who support him are the next most guilty, then the people who don't support him but who think he's not so bad are the next most guilty. Finally the people who know the difference between bad and much worse are the least guilty.

So we're all guilty but there's a lot of grey area.

And to think this all started because Obama got a peace award and some people didn't like that. When I said I was away because I was learning, apparently I didn't learn anything.
Kirk
I love you Donnie, pass it down the line.
Donnie Darko
I love you too man. And I'm sober right now so I don't even have an excuse.
Kirk
And I support no one, the person closest to me is the one that gets kicked in the balls first
pass it on, that's just me.
Kirk
I've been sober for more days than I care to count,
and weed,
oh my god, the dreams haunt me, I never dream so much
as when I don't smoke weed.
A little weed, I sleep like the dead
no weed, I sleep like a baby;
awake every fifteen minutes and crying,
it's the visions of snakes that really kill me
snakes kissing
snakes missing
copper snakes coiling
silver snakes roiling
and the gold ones nearly licking me.
I come to it honestly, everyone with my genes runs in the night
from something,
they
are
a
bunch of stupid ass pipe layers.
You go get 'em, I'm too tired from lack of sleep.
Kirk
I drink less than you might think
Kirk
But more than I should
dakini_painter
The snakes are telling you to get back in the studio and make some Art. That is your Path.


When I was harvested some AA at this farm nearby, each time I got back home, when closing my eyes for sleep I'd have images of flowering AA stalks imprinted on my retina. It'd happen for several days afterward. It was like they were calling to me. And after the last day of the harvest, no more. They said we're done.


Donnie, I don't see the Taliban as some great threat to us. There are so many bad people, bad leaders in the world. I just don't see America's position as being the country to "fix" the world to be the way we want it to be: subservient to America.

Donnie, yes I'm sure there are people afraid that if the Taliban got their hands on those Pakistani nukes they'd launch them at Israel and maybe at China to help avenge the deaths of their Uighur brothers. China finds it very convenient to have the US do it's military battles for it which is why the dollars keep flowing to buy those T-bills our gov't sells to pay for it all.
Kirk
"each time I got back home, when closing my eyes for sleep I'd have images of flowering AA stalks imprinted on my retina"

I get the same thing, when I process it. When all the scrap bits and pieces are laying on the patio, they look just like worms, especially if it rains.
On another note, did anyone read the article about synthetic artemisinin in the late September New Yorker?
It said the oil level drops in the plant Sweet Annie rapidly on exposure to light.
What is with all these herb growers that brag about sun dried herbs? You really have to keep them in the dark,
always.
Provenance
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 12 2009, 06:43 PM) *
Collateral damage is never desirable

QUOTE(Kirk @ Oct 12 2009, 07:05 PM) *

Everyone knows, cooking them alive is more tasty.

Donnie Darko
QUOTE(dakini_painter @ Oct 13 2009, 08:20 AM) *

Donnie, I don't see the Taliban as some great threat to us.


By "us" do you mean Americans or humans in general? I'm not a fan of maps, as they remove "us" from "the rest of us". The Taliban's well established record speaks for itself, and they've demonstrated repeatedly that if given any power at all, they will use it to murder and oppress, and the more power they have, they more oppression and murder they carry out. Maybe they can't reach "us", but as far as I'm concerned "us" is no different from "the rest of us", so we should still try to stop them. Because hey, maybe a stable Afghanistan will be better for us and them than a country ruled by middle-eastern Nazis.

We're talking about people who are not all that different from the Spanish Inquisition. I'd like to think we'd recognize the value in intervening to stop that sort of thing even if it were happening on the moon.

QUOTE
There are so many bad people, bad leaders in the world.


Letting them run free will only increase their ability to make the world worse for everyone. Of course there are limits.

QUOTE
I just don't see America's position as being the country to "fix" the world to be the way we want it to be: subservient to America.


While ultimately total independence is the best option for any country, do you think it would be better for Afghanistan to be subservient to America or subservient to the Taliban? We've already seen what the latter choice is like.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 13 2009, 03:35 AM) *


I'm just saying that if supporters of the Taliban are collateral damage, I don't think that's such a big blow to peace. If some people who died had nothing to do with anything Taliban and just went to the funeral because they liked the Taliban commander as a person, well that's sad and a tragic loss of human life. But then we should never drop bombs because somebody who isn't a bad guy might accidentally get killed.


So lets ditch rules of war then? Lets go back to the middle ages? Tear up the Geneva convention and all the other conventions and treaties we've signed up to? So long as we get our man it doesn't really matter who gets killed in the process? A war crime is only a war crime if its commited against us, never if its committed by us against others?

And there was me thinking you were a liberal Donnie, but then someone once said "Scratch a liberal and you will find a reactionary underneath".
Kirk
We will need to accept the same treatment that we mete out.
Kirk
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Kirk

The Young British Soldier

When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!

Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .

When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .

But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .

Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .

If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .

When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

Rudyard Kipling
dakini_painter
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Oct 13 2009, 12:29 PM) *

QUOTE(dakini_painter @ Oct 13 2009, 08:20 AM) *

QUOTE
There are so many bad people, bad leaders in the world.


Letting them run free will only increase their ability to make the world worse for everyone. Of course there are limits.



Sounds like you're making the same arguments as Bush/McCain. I think it's completely unreasonable for a bankrupt US to go and fix all the world's problems when we refuse to fix out own. There's a reason it's called a War Machine. It's a machine that continues to go on killing until there's no one left. And after we "fix" Afghanistan , and the terrorists run to another country (say Somalia) we'll have to go there and "fix" them. And then they run to another county (say Algeria). Then we go there and "fix" them.

And I still haven't seen any one saying who's paying for all this? It's actually us. With interest paid to China. And it's going to be a lot of interest because we haven't even begun to pay on the principal of the last 8 years of war.
Kirk
Sounds profitable as hell.

It's really all about the contract money.
It would be cheaper and more humane to not do that.
If you think the insurance companies spend a lot lobbying, you should see what the machine does,
but you won't, if you do, it's too late.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.