6 ms·

It does seem awfully fast, but for what it's worth: 1) He banned torture (waterboarding) 2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it

It does seem awfully fast, but for what it's worth: 1) He banned torture (waterboarding) 2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it can't be easy. 3) He's willing to negotiate with Iran without pre-conditions 4) He's actually trying to push for a Middle East peace deal, and is being vocal about settlements 5) He wants a world without nukes. 6) He didn't put the missile shield near Russia, significantly calming things down over there. Probably some other stuff too. Is he like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi? Absolutely not. But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique.

lionhearted 17y ago
Said differently: Wants: To close a nasty illegal prison, but hasn't yet. Talked to some people. Wants less nukes in the world. Didn't build a defense system. Did: Re-banned torture, in accordance with international law. Result: Nobel peace prize.
- mingdingo 17y ago
  You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. In a vacuum, these things don't sound so great. In today's world, they actually are. Obviously there's something wrong with that, but that's just the way it is.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. Dude, Bush invaded two countries for no particular good reason. Clinton jumped into the middle of a backwards country's tribal civil war to draw attention away from his personal life. Obama can't close a fucking prison? Seriously.
    - lliiffee 17y ago
      About Clinton. That's what I thought at the time, too. But it turns out to be absolutely false. http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/30/terror/index.html http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/30/terror... > "CIA officials went to the White House and said they had 'specific, predictive, actionable' intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. 'It was a rare occurrence,' Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however -- August 20, 1998 -- nearly coincided with Clinton's deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of 'wagging the dog' in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. 'Don't you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,' Clinton said, according to Clarke. 'You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?' Clarke thought it was. 'Then fucking do it,' Clinton told him."
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - unalone 17y ago
      Maybe that's because Obama doesn't want to break federal law like Bush did? You can't criticize Bush for doing illegal things and then turn around and criticize Obama for obeying the law.
kyro 17y ago
You do realize that 4 out of those 6 things you listed are nothing more than his desires and wishes, and number 6 is giving him credit for not doing something? Hell, I have at least 50 wishes to make the world better, and a list twice that long of things I haven't done.
david927 17y ago
2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it can't be easy. It's not about being easy or hard, but about the gigantic class action civil suit awaiting the U.S. government the minute they release them.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  And rightly so. You break it you get to buy it. It's amazing that so many people bought in to that stuff under Bush, I always thought that if there is one thing America will forever have to live with then it is Gitmo. Just like the Dutch have their colonial crimes and the Germans have world war II. Some things can not be excused. Keeping people imprisoned without due process is such a crime that history will definitely remember, and that's besides the 'details' such as torturing them. And doing it on foreign soil so you can pretend it's not an American thing is even more disgusting. If you do a thing like that at least have the balls to do it in your own country. And if that is impossible then don't do it. Someone ought to end up in the Hague over that one.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - berntb 17y ago
    To play the devil's advocate... USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that? Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended. What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric. Edit: A couple of grammar changes.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that? Good point, so maybe upgrade the US prisons to Guantanamo Bay standards ? > Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended. But it isn't a war. Besides that, even if it was there are pretty strict guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war. So either they're civilians that have been arrested for crimes or they're prisoners of war. You have to choose and then play by those rules. Inventing new terms ("enemy combatants") isn't going to convince anybody but the most gullible. > What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric. This we fully agree on. Even torture can be outsourced it seems. But I think that does not remove the responsibility for it.
jacquesm 17y ago
> But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique. Yes, he is unique. As is everybody else. Uniqueness is not a reason to give someone a prize, achievement is. And from where I'm sitting the only thing that has changed is that the American President is no longer making a fool of himself on the international stage and hasn't made the rest of the world wonder if he still has all his marbles. But to give him a prize for that belies the people that have in some cases paid with their lives for achieving their goals, and then to be awarded their 'prize' 30 years after the fact. There should be some honour in being awarded a prize, this is more like an incentive to keep going.
- greyman 17y ago
  Regarding the point 6), he actually did achieve that - missile shields in Czech Rep. and Poland were cancelled. I am not Obama fan, but there were much worse choices in the past.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    It's not like he had a whole lot of choice there, the missile shield was one of the biggest and stupidest mistakes of GWB (outside of invading Iraq and squandering the world wide ocean of goodwill the US could tap from after 9/11). Recipe for getting a nobel prize: Undo your predecessors stupidity. We should be getting to parity first, then we should improve beyond where we were roughly 9 years ago, then some time needs to pass to figure in the side effects of all the good intentions. If it still stands you can have your prize. Less than a year into a presidency that has already lost a lot of its luster is premature by any standards. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve one, I'm simply saying that he has to earn it and has not earned it yet. By far. Well, apparently he has, but after this I can't see anybody taking winning the Nobel Prize for Peace as a real achievement. If there was really nobody deserving it more than Obama this year then maybe they should have simply skipped a year. Makes you wonder who the other nominees were. Is there a list of that ?
    - thismat 17y ago
      Could you enlighten me as to why the missile shields were a bad idea?

lionhearted 17y ago

Said differently: Wants: To close a nasty illegal prison, but hasn't yet. Talked to some people. Wants less nukes in the world. Didn't build a defense system. Did: Re-banned torture, in accordance with international law. Result: Nobel peace prize.

mingdingo 17y ago
You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. In a vacuum, these things don't sound so great. In today's world, they actually are. Obviously there's something wrong with that, but that's just the way it is.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. Dude, Bush invaded two countries for no particular good reason. Clinton jumped into the middle of a backwards country's tribal civil war to draw attention away from his personal life. Obama can't close a fucking prison? Seriously.
  - lliiffee 17y ago
    About Clinton. That's what I thought at the time, too. But it turns out to be absolutely false. http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/30/terror/index.html http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/30/terror... > "CIA officials went to the White House and said they had 'specific, predictive, actionable' intelligence that bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a particular place. 'It was a rare occurrence,' Clarke said. Clinton authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however -- August 20, 1998 -- nearly coincided with Clinton's deposition about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national security officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he would likely be accused of 'wagging the dog' in order to distract the public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. 'Don't you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal problems,' Clinton said, according to Clarke. 'You tell me about national security. Is it the right thing to do?' Clarke thought it was. 'Then fucking do it,' Clinton told him."
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - unalone 17y ago
    Maybe that's because Obama doesn't want to break federal law like Bush did? You can't criticize Bush for doing illegal things and then turn around and criticize Obama for obeying the law.

kyro 17y ago

You do realize that 4 out of those 6 things you listed are nothing more than his desires and wishes, and number 6 is giving him credit for not doing something? Hell, I have at least 50 wishes to make the world better, and a list twice that long of things I haven't done.

david927 17y ago

2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it can't be easy. It's not about being easy or hard, but about the gigantic class action civil suit awaiting the U.S. government the minute they release them.

jacquesm 17y ago
And rightly so. You break it you get to buy it. It's amazing that so many people bought in to that stuff under Bush, I always thought that if there is one thing America will forever have to live with then it is Gitmo. Just like the Dutch have their colonial crimes and the Germans have world war II. Some things can not be excused. Keeping people imprisoned without due process is such a crime that history will definitely remember, and that's besides the 'details' such as torturing them. And doing it on foreign soil so you can pretend it's not an American thing is even more disgusting. If you do a thing like that at least have the balls to do it in your own country. And if that is impossible then don't do it. Someone ought to end up in the Hague over that one.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- berntb 17y ago
  To play the devil's advocate... USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that? Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended. What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric. Edit: A couple of grammar changes.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > USA has a prison system that is 19th century, compared to the rest of the western world. How much worse is Guantanamo than that? Good point, so maybe upgrade the US prisons to Guantanamo Bay standards ? > Also, afaik prisoners of war can be held until the conflict is ended. The conflict in Afghanistan is arguable not ended. But it isn't a war. Besides that, even if it was there are pretty strict guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war. So either they're civilians that have been arrested for crimes or they're prisoners of war. You have to choose and then play by those rules. Inventing new terms ("enemy combatants") isn't going to convince anybody but the most gullible. > What I find shocking is the water boarding and sending people for interrogation to places which are really barbaric. This we fully agree on. Even torture can be outsourced it seems. But I think that does not remove the responsibility for it.

jacquesm 17y ago

> But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique. Yes, he is unique. As is everybody else. Uniqueness is not a reason to give someone a prize, achievement is. And from where I'm sitting the only thing that has changed is that the American President is no longer making a fool of himself on the international stage and hasn't made the rest of the world wonder if he still has all his marbles. But to give him a prize for that belies the people that have in some cases paid with their lives for achieving their goals, and then to be awarded their 'prize' 30 years after the fact. There should be some honour in being awarded a prize, this is more like an incentive to keep going.

greyman 17y ago
Regarding the point 6), he actually did achieve that - missile shields in Czech Rep. and Poland were cancelled. I am not Obama fan, but there were much worse choices in the past.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It's not like he had a whole lot of choice there, the missile shield was one of the biggest and stupidest mistakes of GWB (outside of invading Iraq and squandering the world wide ocean of goodwill the US could tap from after 9/11). Recipe for getting a nobel prize: Undo your predecessors stupidity. We should be getting to parity first, then we should improve beyond where we were roughly 9 years ago, then some time needs to pass to figure in the side effects of all the good intentions. If it still stands you can have your prize. Less than a year into a presidency that has already lost a lot of its luster is premature by any standards. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve one, I'm simply saying that he has to earn it and has not earned it yet. By far. Well, apparently he has, but after this I can't see anybody taking winning the Nobel Prize for Peace as a real achievement. If there was really nobody deserving it more than Obama this year then maybe they should have simply skipped a year. Makes you wonder who the other nominees were. Is there a list of that ?
  - thismat 17y ago
    Could you enlighten me as to why the missile shields were a bad idea?