3 ms·

If you're looking at it like how an athlete would get a gold medal, maybe? Even then, the fact that an unqualified person (such as with doping and cheating) was

If you're looking at it like how an athlete would get a gold medal, maybe? Even then, the fact that an unqualified person (such as with doping and cheating) was given a medal, doesn't take away from someone's accomplishment. But back on Obama, was your expectation that he wouldn't hurt a fly? Did he start a war? Did he not set the stage for withdrawing from two wars (both justified imho!)? Did he order the killing of anyone who wasn't a legitimate military target? I'm not saying he should have been given any award, and certainly his was premature, but it is hardly without precedent. The peace prize is given to leaders who worked towards peace. It gives them recognition, sort of like a pat on the back so they won't give up. Would you rather a retired politician get the prize so he can boast about it? or an active politician so that he now has the prize as a reminder of their promises and work towards peace? He said it best: "Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action—a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. But the US did pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and conflicts in Syira, Libya and all over the world sprung that were too easy for the US to be involved in but the US didn't. The US military responded to various natural disasters providing crucial aid, such as with the 2011 Haiti earthquake. I think this sentiment is held largely by people who don't want to be bothered by nuance and who have an immature concept of peace, one that doesn't involve violence or military action (despite concepts like "peace keeping force" existing).

krustyburger 1y ago
The US did not pull out of Afghanistan under Obama.
- ToDougie 1y ago
  A minor detail, surely.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  I said eventually, and he did set the stage for the pull out. he could have done the opposite and established longer term commitments. Honestly, my view is that both countries should have been incorporated as US territories. $20tn is not a small amount, and by virtue of being the aggressors, they've lost their right to self-rule (yes, even in without wmd's Saddam was taunting support for US's enemies).
  - krustyburger 1y ago
    Giving him credit for something executed under an administration two presidencies later seems like a bit of a stretch in any case. But especially in this specific case, where he actually presided over a dramatic US escalation in Afghanistan: https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releases/obama-era-afghanistan-war-surge-debated/ https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releas...
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      Without which an eventual withdrawal wouldn't have been possible. If he didn't do all that, the reason behind the war to begin with (afghan's hosting terrorists) wouldn't have been solved making withdrawal impossible. You'll note, there are no terror plots originating from Afghanistan now. And to be fair, most of that credit goes to Bush, but Obama didn't dismantle what Bush started just for the sake of appearances of pleasing the Nobel committee. Say what you will, but he did great militarily.
  - dh2022 1y ago
    Obama considered the war in Afghanistan justified- at least that is my recollection from one of his debates with McCain. Obama considered the Iraq unnecessary- and got him elected. in 2008 the American public was deeply upset about how things were going in Iraq. Obama was one of the only 2 senators voting against the war in Iraq back in 2003; and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while McCain vowed to be aWar president. In this climate Obama won both the Democratic nomination and later the US presidency.
    - 1y ago
ToDougie 1y ago
I would prefer if awards were given to people for something they achieved, not for something they promised to achieve. The Arab Spring did not occur in a vacuum. If you're satisfied with America's public or private involvement, great. General Wesley Clark has a rather infamous interview from 2007 that you may want to consider. Anyways, I think Trump is better motivated by not giving him the Peace Prize.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  Trump is a jerk. and he makes a million promises and keeps like 10. He isn't the type of person that is afraid of looking bad because he broke a promise, he's more likely to use a peace prize to justify violence because after all, it has to be someone else's fault since he has a peace prize awarded to him. Maybe there should be other prizes for life time achievement or something, but the Nobel committee seems to be intent on promoting peace instead of giving kudos to someone. I think neither obama or trump qualify, even to promote peace. it implies that they are law makers. in the US, the president is supposed to be an executive that takes actions, not a legislator that has the power to start or end wars. Treat them like kings and be surprised when one of them dumb enough to think he actually is one starts acting like it. that's the state of things unfortunately.
  - russellbeattie 1y ago
    > ...he makes a million promises and keeps like 10. Depends on who he's making the promises to. Everything he promised during the election in terms of vengeance, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, etc. as enumerated in Project 2025 has been fulfilled as promised to a T, or is on its way. In fact, from that perspective, I'd say he's kept more promises and acted more quickly on them than any other president in history. As long as the promise includes cruelty or injustice, he is as good as his word.
- hunterpayne 1y ago
  Unfun fact, the Arab Spring was caused by a spike in food prices, not from any sort of political or leadership changes or behavior. The spike in food prices came from an unfortunate combination of bad weather in Russia and Obama's policies (specially biofuels). To his credit, Obama pulled the plug on the biofuel disaster after about 6 months but by then, it wasn't spring anymore and the Syrian civil war had already begun.
UncleOxidant 1y ago
> Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president? I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  Not so much the backlash, but what it means for America and the now old world order. Everything he stood for now requires a civil war or worse to sustain it. Look at it this way, it shouldn't matter that he's black right? But he really needed to be a force of change, not someone who kept the norm and preserved the status quo. He was the highest democrat when they pushed Hillary as the next president and he endorsed her. He didn't jail the bankers, change the democratic party, do something about wage inequality, or about citizens united, reform the intel services after snowden,etc.. the racists can throw a fit all the want, but if he did a good job, it would have only hurt their cause. But his mediocrity and dying on hills like the ACA (because his mother suffered a lot, bad experience with health care,etc..) only made the moderates that voted for him twice retract. You see how loud trump is and how just goes around bulldozing things? Obama was hired to do that job in '08. trump is doing it for fascist and racist ends, but the people wanted to hire a bulldozer. Now, if you ask me, this is all largely the fault of an ungrateful American public that don't get just how good even the lowliest homeless guy has it in America and how easy it is to lose all that we have. There is this infuriating foolishness that's endemic in America where there is a disdain for institutions, politicians, etc... and both liberals and conservatives have this disease. That's why everyone wants a bulldozer, and guess what, America is getting bulldozed right now. Oh, and Biden was many times worse because he saw how bad it was under Trump and he doubled down on mediocrity and "return to normal" , he wanted to improve the economy and living conditions of Americans, leave a nice legacy or whatever. If only he was the president decades ago. he couldn't even fire his own attorney general for not convicting trump and locking him up. He knew a traitor to the country and an even worse person is about to run for president and he just sat back and stuck to ideals and optimistic hopes and wishes. Obama's failure is that he didn't do the job he was hired to do and didn't adapt to the changing tides of politics well enough.
Arainach 1y ago
>Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. What do you mean by this?
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  I think history would agree eventually that his timing was unfortunate. The changes in technology (social media, smartphones,etc..) and the 2008 financial crisis culminated in large scale social changes and dissatisfaction. That along with aging politicians stuck in their old ways was a huge challenge. And he could have maybe overcome all that except for the fact that even in Obama's own lifetime, half the country didn't want black people to have the same rights as whites, so he had to deal with the racism. It all comes down to money and the gravity center of finance. Those who wanted in on commerce and rising wealth used racial attacks against him to inflame a discontent society, and the figurehead of that inflammation seized power. As they say, "America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", it would have been britain, ottomans,hispania, portugal, baghdad,ctesiphon, karakorum,venice,rome,etc.. in different times of history. but it is the US now, and as a result the world caught the fascism fever. I think that means Obama inadvertently was instrumental in the collapse of US-centric world older and in the shifting of center of gravity once again. I don't see beijing picking up the slack, it would be less chaotic if it were that simple. but i'm concerned the US itself won't make it till the end of this decade and I don't know what will come afterwards. China has been in times past set to take on the throne but they've been complacent and isolationist. That I think means a contraction of US's reach and influence with an unfilled vacuum, starting in Europe and spanning the globe. It might be decades before there is any kind of stability. It's basically wealthy people of the west not wanting to accept reality that's keeping things afloat so far. If McCain won in '08 and Obama won in '12, the swing may have been wildly different. If Romney won '12 there wouldn't be a trump admin. You'll notice that a lot of people agree that things started going really bad around 2013-15, that's on Obama's second term, after the snowden leaks. Brexit and other far right movements also peaked then. He isn't responsible and he didn't mean to, but the current state of things wouldn't have occurred without him. One thing he could have helped though. He could have avoided making fun of an insecure billionaire at the white house correspondent's dinner. and that certain billionaire (with a long documented history of discriminating against blacks and working for the russians), wouldn't have made it his mission in life to dismantle reverting that represented Obama.
seatac76 1y ago
Hitchens argued it best imho: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwGSSzPuEaM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwGSSzPuEaM
tsimionescu 1y ago
Obama basically created the modern drone war, with his heavy investment in drone killings in all of the middle east. He is also the first US president to openly admit to ordering the assassination of a US citizen without trial. Of course, not everything he did was bad. He did have better intentions on combating climate change than president before or after him, for example.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial. As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    > Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted. This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France. > As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon. Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
    - mkfs 1y ago

krustyburger 1y ago

The US did not pull out of Afghanistan under Obama.

ToDougie 1y ago
A minor detail, surely.
notepad0x90 1y ago
I said eventually, and he did set the stage for the pull out. he could have done the opposite and established longer term commitments. Honestly, my view is that both countries should have been incorporated as US territories. $20tn is not a small amount, and by virtue of being the aggressors, they've lost their right to self-rule (yes, even in without wmd's Saddam was taunting support for US's enemies).
- krustyburger 1y ago
  Giving him credit for something executed under an administration two presidencies later seems like a bit of a stretch in any case. But especially in this specific case, where he actually presided over a dramatic US escalation in Afghanistan: https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releases/obama-era-afghanistan-war-surge-debated/ https://www.afghanistanwarcommission.senate.gov/press-releas...
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    Without which an eventual withdrawal wouldn't have been possible. If he didn't do all that, the reason behind the war to begin with (afghan's hosting terrorists) wouldn't have been solved making withdrawal impossible. You'll note, there are no terror plots originating from Afghanistan now. And to be fair, most of that credit goes to Bush, but Obama didn't dismantle what Bush started just for the sake of appearances of pleasing the Nobel committee. Say what you will, but he did great militarily.
- dh2022 1y ago
  Obama considered the war in Afghanistan justified- at least that is my recollection from one of his debates with McCain. Obama considered the Iraq unnecessary- and got him elected. in 2008 the American public was deeply upset about how things were going in Iraq. Obama was one of the only 2 senators voting against the war in Iraq back in 2003; and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, while McCain vowed to be aWar president. In this climate Obama won both the Democratic nomination and later the US presidency.
  - 1y ago

ToDougie 1y ago

I would prefer if awards were given to people for something they achieved, not for something they promised to achieve. The Arab Spring did not occur in a vacuum. If you're satisfied with America's public or private involvement, great. General Wesley Clark has a rather infamous interview from 2007 that you may want to consider. Anyways, I think Trump is better motivated by not giving him the Peace Prize.

notepad0x90 1y ago
Trump is a jerk. and he makes a million promises and keeps like 10. He isn't the type of person that is afraid of looking bad because he broke a promise, he's more likely to use a peace prize to justify violence because after all, it has to be someone else's fault since he has a peace prize awarded to him. Maybe there should be other prizes for life time achievement or something, but the Nobel committee seems to be intent on promoting peace instead of giving kudos to someone. I think neither obama or trump qualify, even to promote peace. it implies that they are law makers. in the US, the president is supposed to be an executive that takes actions, not a legislator that has the power to start or end wars. Treat them like kings and be surprised when one of them dumb enough to think he actually is one starts acting like it. that's the state of things unfortunately.
- russellbeattie 1y ago
  > ...he makes a million promises and keeps like 10. Depends on who he's making the promises to. Everything he promised during the election in terms of vengeance, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, etc. as enumerated in Project 2025 has been fulfilled as promised to a T, or is on its way. In fact, from that perspective, I'd say he's kept more promises and acted more quickly on them than any other president in history. As long as the promise includes cruelty or injustice, he is as good as his word.
hunterpayne 1y ago
Unfun fact, the Arab Spring was caused by a spike in food prices, not from any sort of political or leadership changes or behavior. The spike in food prices came from an unfortunate combination of bad weather in Russia and Obama's policies (specially biofuels). To his credit, Obama pulled the plug on the biofuel disaster after about 6 months but by then, it wasn't spring anymore and the Syrian civil war had already begun.

UncleOxidant 1y ago

> Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. Due to the right-wing backlash against a black president? I don't view his winning as the catastrophe, I view it as leading to a revelation about what was just under the surface. The catastrophe has been caused by others.

notepad0x90 1y ago
Not so much the backlash, but what it means for America and the now old world order. Everything he stood for now requires a civil war or worse to sustain it. Look at it this way, it shouldn't matter that he's black right? But he really needed to be a force of change, not someone who kept the norm and preserved the status quo. He was the highest democrat when they pushed Hillary as the next president and he endorsed her. He didn't jail the bankers, change the democratic party, do something about wage inequality, or about citizens united, reform the intel services after snowden,etc.. the racists can throw a fit all the want, but if he did a good job, it would have only hurt their cause. But his mediocrity and dying on hills like the ACA (because his mother suffered a lot, bad experience with health care,etc..) only made the moderates that voted for him twice retract. You see how loud trump is and how just goes around bulldozing things? Obama was hired to do that job in '08. trump is doing it for fascist and racist ends, but the people wanted to hire a bulldozer. Now, if you ask me, this is all largely the fault of an ungrateful American public that don't get just how good even the lowliest homeless guy has it in America and how easy it is to lose all that we have. There is this infuriating foolishness that's endemic in America where there is a disdain for institutions, politicians, etc... and both liberals and conservatives have this disease. That's why everyone wants a bulldozer, and guess what, America is getting bulldozed right now. Oh, and Biden was many times worse because he saw how bad it was under Trump and he doubled down on mediocrity and "return to normal" , he wanted to improve the economy and living conditions of Americans, leave a nice legacy or whatever. If only he was the president decades ago. he couldn't even fire his own attorney general for not convicting trump and locking him up. He knew a traitor to the country and an even worse person is about to run for president and he just sat back and stuck to ideals and optimistic hopes and wishes. Obama's failure is that he didn't do the job he was hired to do and didn't adapt to the changing tides of politics well enough.

Arainach 1y ago

>Either way, in retrospect, him winning an election is in the long term arguably, and to no fault of his own, a catastrophe. What do you mean by this?

notepad0x90 1y ago
I think history would agree eventually that his timing was unfortunate. The changes in technology (social media, smartphones,etc..) and the 2008 financial crisis culminated in large scale social changes and dissatisfaction. That along with aging politicians stuck in their old ways was a huge challenge. And he could have maybe overcome all that except for the fact that even in Obama's own lifetime, half the country didn't want black people to have the same rights as whites, so he had to deal with the racism. It all comes down to money and the gravity center of finance. Those who wanted in on commerce and rising wealth used racial attacks against him to inflame a discontent society, and the figurehead of that inflammation seized power. As they say, "America sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold", it would have been britain, ottomans,hispania, portugal, baghdad,ctesiphon, karakorum,venice,rome,etc.. in different times of history. but it is the US now, and as a result the world caught the fascism fever. I think that means Obama inadvertently was instrumental in the collapse of US-centric world older and in the shifting of center of gravity once again. I don't see beijing picking up the slack, it would be less chaotic if it were that simple. but i'm concerned the US itself won't make it till the end of this decade and I don't know what will come afterwards. China has been in times past set to take on the throne but they've been complacent and isolationist. That I think means a contraction of US's reach and influence with an unfilled vacuum, starting in Europe and spanning the globe. It might be decades before there is any kind of stability. It's basically wealthy people of the west not wanting to accept reality that's keeping things afloat so far. If McCain won in '08 and Obama won in '12, the swing may have been wildly different. If Romney won '12 there wouldn't be a trump admin. You'll notice that a lot of people agree that things started going really bad around 2013-15, that's on Obama's second term, after the snowden leaks. Brexit and other far right movements also peaked then. He isn't responsible and he didn't mean to, but the current state of things wouldn't have occurred without him. One thing he could have helped though. He could have avoided making fun of an insecure billionaire at the white house correspondent's dinner. and that certain billionaire (with a long documented history of discriminating against blacks and working for the russians), wouldn't have made it his mission in life to dismantle reverting that represented Obama.

seatac76 1y ago

Hitchens argued it best imho: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwGSSzPuEaM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwGSSzPuEaM

tsimionescu 1y ago

Obama basically created the modern drone war, with his heavy investment in drone killings in all of the middle east. He is also the first US president to openly admit to ordering the assassination of a US citizen without trial. Of course, not everything he did was bad. He did have better intentions on combating climate change than president before or after him, for example.

notepad0x90 1y ago
Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial. As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? Drone warfare is inevitable. But the upside is you don't risk expensive pilots but also they can be more precise and lead to less "boots on the ground" scenarios. I am much a critic of him, but this ain't it for me. Maybe allowing ISIS to prosper would be a better criticism.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  > Being a US citizen doesn't mean anything in a combat zone. You can't pause the battle and have a trial This isn't about an air strike on some base where they later found out that an American citizen was among the insurgents they targeted. This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism. This would be exactly as if Trump declared Hassan Piker a terrorist threat for helping organize AntiFa and sent drones to kill him while he's on a trip to France. > As far as drone killings, would you prefer airstrikes that have high collateral damage? No, I would prefer that no killings take place at all. I should think that Alfred Nobel would also have preferred that his peace prize were not given to someone who invented/popularized a new "cleaner" weapon. Obligatory note: Obama is far from the worse person who received the peace prize. He did genuinely good things in addition to his targeted killings (even for peace in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal was a major milestone and attempt, as short lived as it turned out to be).
  - mkfs 1y ago