General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill Obama's Nobel Peace Prize be revoked?
"On Tuesday, progressive campaigners Roots Action launched an online petition calling for the revocation of President Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
"President Obama has made perpetual war look more perpetual than ever," reads the petition, which the group plans to send to the Norwegian Nobel Committee. And continues: "Today, there are more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than when Obama took office. His presidency has widened the use of drones and other instruments of remote killing in several countries."
Human rights and peace advocates have long-contested the awarding of the esteemed peace prize to an individual who has been called "one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades" for his escalation of a widespread killer-drone campaign, prolonged wars in the Middle East, and enablement of prisoner abuse and indefinite detention."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/02-8
Frankly I think that he didn't deserve it when he got it, mainly because he hadn't done anything to deserve getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Nearly four years later, I think that Obama's actions make his awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize a sad joke. I doubt that his Peace Prize will be revoked, the Nobel committee is like other such organizations, reluctant to admit it was wrong. But it should be revoked, since I have yet to see anything resembling peace coming from this president. Yes, he ended the war in Iraq, then ratcheted up the war in Afghanistan, which is now slated to be consuming our money and troops for another eleven years at least. And let's not even get into his drone policy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to MadHound (Original post)
GreenRanger Message auto-removed
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It was awarded not so much for his actions to promote peace, but for the fact that he was NotBush. While I can appreciate that, I think that given Obama's actions the past four years, the Nobel committee has come to regret their haste.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)kind of in a preemptive gesture, meant probably to be an incentive to him to choose peace rather than war, since our country is been so avid to go on battles prior to PBO taking office. Kind of like: look, I bought you a nice present. Now behave.
:/
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Mairead Maguire. Only she said it respectfully.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)She organized peace activists in Northern Ireland. Her tone was not cynical. And her statement was made in defense of Obama's winning it. She personally identified with Obama's history as an organizer in an area where there is still a lot of tension.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And where and why Obama was organizing in Chicago. How many people deliberately targeted Obama? How many governments were targeting Obama? I think that Macguire was simply trying to be kind.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Obama wrote about having to ht the pavement because he was hearing gun shots. He wasn't the target, but he was as vulnerable as anyone living in an area with a lot of violence.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)Celebrating the end of the W Admin.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts) cali
(114,904 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Roots Action... another organization to remove from my social network feeds.
Just removed Common Dreams yesterday.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Some people on DU are starting to sound like Fox News.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It seems like a group of DUers has already forgotten what Obama has done. I'm sure you have already posted in the "I got duped thread"
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)received it? Yes, I do.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)"As Obama admitted, even if the START treaty is fully implemented, the US will have a massive nuclear arsenal—more than 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons and around 5,000 warheads—that can obliterate any potential rival or alliance of rivals. As for “narrowing the range of contingencies”, the US has never renounced a first nuclear strike—that is, the “right” to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war of aggression.
While it is not upgrading American nuclear warheads, the Obama administration is committed to spending at least $600 billion over the next decade to modernise weapons production facilities and delivery systems. These include a new generation of land-based ballistic missiles, a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines and 100 new strategic bombers.
What is under way is not nuclear disarmament, but an arms race. The key index of this new build up is not the absolute number of nuclear warheads, but the sophistication of the delivery systems and their ability to evade detection and defensive measures. Moreover, while limiting the number of “deployed nuclear warheads,” the US retains the ability to rapidly construct tens of thousands of new ones from its huge stockpile of 400 tonnes of highly enriched uranium."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/03/pers-m29.html
Oh, and it wasn't just on Obama's supposed work in nuclear disarmament, but also for bringing a "new climate" to international relations, especially relations in the Middle East. Sounds like a sad joke now, given that he's droned the hell out of the area, wouldn't you agree?
jybarz
(35 posts)Where you mad when Bush started the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq? But you're mad now that Obama is winding down these wars, why? Are you a disgruntled Democrat? Are you a Conservative? You sound like a GOPer. What has Obama done in the Middle East that you don't like? You didn't like, or disappointed, that not many American lives were lost there like in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Are you a spokesman for the GOP?
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)I think that if you went back and dug through the archives here, you'll find that I vociferously opposed Bush and his wars of empire. Yes, Obama has ended the war in Iraq, but ramped up the war in Afghanistan. That isn't the way of peace. After all, what reason do we have for ever being in Afghanistan? None, absolutely none. But we're apparently not going to leave Afghanistan for a long time. Under the SOF agreement that Obama signed with Kharzi in their midnight meeting last year, we've committed troops to Afghanistan until at least 2024.
Meanwhile, Obama has expanded our illegal, immoral use of drones, violating the sovereignty of nations and killing thousands of innocents. He is expanding our military footprint into Africa and Asia, trying to play the Great Game with China, never mind the lives we will take in the area. Oh, and let's not forget that we're now dabbling now with Syria, shipping in weapons and such, not to mention ongoing saber rattling with Iran and N. Korea. Does that sound like a man of peace to you? It certainly doesn't sound like one to me, instead it sounds like another corporate president who is keeping his masters in the MIC happy and well fed.
Disgruntled Dem, yeah, you could say that. Last time I was a Dem was back in the '80's. Before that, I had been a delegate to the DNC, worked on presidential, and other campaigns, and saw the worst of the Democratic party. So I got out. As a serious leftist, peace activist, I saw where the party was and where it was headed, far to the right of where I was on the political spectrum. Sadly, it exceeded my worst fears, to the point where we have a Democratic president governing from the roughly the same political position as Eisenhower did. The only thing worse is that conservatives think he is a socialist, which means the idiots at the Democratic party are going to continue their dive to the right in order to pick up votes.
No, I'm no spokesman for the GOP, just an old school peacenik, leftist who is pissed at a party that has left him behind on its march to the right.
Any other questions?
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)That's not a nice thing to say at all. The poster performs a valuable service to DU by seeking out obscure Internet sources and posting screeds from those sources. Someone, after all, must find several articles daily berating President Obama to balance out the support for him on DU. It's a necessary function, and we're lucky to have a DUer who is dedicated to it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)forums. Airc, the poster was right here supporting Democrats. These 'sources' would probably not be familiar to anyone who was not opposing Bush during those awful years. But to Democrats who were engaged in opposing rather than defending Bush, those sources were valuable sources and it is very strange frankly to see the recent influx of people who do not seem familiar with the work they did to expose the Bush lies.
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)Nice to see you again, though. Wherever I go, there you are. It's flattering, and I appreciate it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are in conflict with democratic ideals. That is why being a Democrat is preferable to being a Republican.
Democrats will not blindly support policies as Republicans do simply because a member of their party is supportive of them. That is how we got to where we are, because of the blind support of Republicans for Bush's policies.
Bush's policies, which you would know had you been around during those years, were vehemently opposed by Democrats. Democrats still oppose those policies, many of which have been extended by this president.
Of course if you always supported those policies, then you would have no problem continuing to support them.
This is a public forum, when I make a comment, I often get responses from people who do not agree with me. That's fine, I expect it. If you object to people responding to your comments you have several choices, don't comment publicly, or put people on ignore. I choose not to do either of those two things as I am perfectly capable of dealing with disagreement. And so far apparently, neither have you. No point in complaining when someone responds to your or my comments, or try to 'very carefully' make some kind issue out of it when you choose to engage on a public forum, is there?
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)I will continue to do just that, when I think it's worth doing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the credibility to be taken seriously and I will retain the right to point that out whenever I see it.
Iow, when someone comments on the 'loyalty' of another Democrat it is expected that their own creds are not in question, otherwise their opinions on Democrats and 'loyalty' in general will be remarked on. It is the way it is.
Frankly if I had bad credibility as a Democrat I would refrain from criticizing those who were there, fighting for Democrats all along. I would not expect to be taken seriously by other Democrats knowing I would not be.
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)You're basing what you're saying on inaccurate and incomplete information. That's your privilege.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If that information was inaccurate and incomplete, you can hardly blame anyone for not knowing that. If you want to correct it, you can do so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They were mad when Bush started using Drones, when he claimed the right to go to any country in the world and kill people, with no charges, no trial etc.
People were not mad, despite the claims of Republicans against them, just because it was Bush killing people around the world, they were mad because it was wrong.
Are you saying that people should only be mad if a Republican does it and then, when a Democrat does it they should not be mad?
That would be a very strange thing to believe, if you are a Democrat.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The vast majority of DUers supported the war in Afghanistan from day one. We mostly ignored your pacifist screeds because we weren't really all that interested in carrying water for Idiot. But we did back Idiot on that one.
The vast majority of DUers were against the war in Iraq. And a very common reason for that on DU was that it would take away from the war in Afghanistan.
The vast majority of DUers never spoke out against the use of Drones. But, again, we weren't really all that interested in carrying water for the Idiot.
The simple truth is that opposition against Afghanistan and Drones under Idiot was largely ignored, not supported. "Ignore" and "support" are not synonyms.
I have asked this question a half dozen times, I will ask it again: name one. Name one DUer who opposed the war in Afghanistan under Bush then supported it under Obama.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to tell us it was about. Most democrats I knew at that time were also opposed to it.
You didn't have the privilege of seeing any of my 'screeds' on DU at that time, I was busy being a moderator on a large, liberal forum and fighting with Bush supporters all over the internet, all of whom blindly supported the invasion of Afghanistan. It was comforting back then to be around Democrats who were not duped at all by the 'we'll smoke my old friend outta his cave', who were educated about the history of the Bush criminal family and their many business partners including the Bin Ladens. No Democrat back then ever believed they were there to get Bin Laden.
I wrote long screeds as did most Democrats attempting to overcome the Rendon Group/NYT propaganda on why we were in Afghanistan, at that time. Those screeds were the only way ordinary people could overcome the millions of dollars being spent to sell the 'war' in Afghanistan.
I cannot remember a single Democrat back then who was fooled by the reasons given to invade a country that had zero to do with 9/11, unless we get to invade every country where someone nefarious chooses to visit, and other countries get to invade US for harboring some of the criminals who landed here.
Afghanistan and Iraq were long on the agenda for the Oil Corporations, either through deals and if not, invasion. 9/11 provided them with the opportunity to get the support they needed to finally realize their dreams. It worked, sadly.
Edited to add, what did not work, according to what we are told regarding the forever WOT all over the world, is that we 'won' what the people were told we were to do.
12 years later it appears we need to expand this war as we are in more danger than ever, necessitating the continuation of the Bush anti-constitutional policies, and the continued killing of people all over the world who are still, supposedly, a huge threat to our security.
This country should have been able to win a war against such a rag tag bunch of terrorists. IF that was actually the goal. It wasn't so we are still there fighting for our 'freedoms'. Too bad we give them up so easily right here at home.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Name one DUer who opposed Afghanistan under Bush then began supporting it under Obama. As you do not now support it, you are not one.
While there were DUers who opposed the Afghan war under Bush, to the best of my knowledge every single one of those oppose the war today. So nothing has changed in that regards.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
progressoid
(53,195 posts)Really? Really?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)On more than one occasion back in 2001/2002 polls were taken at DU. Support for the war in Afghanistan beat out opposition overwhelmingly.
But as already stated, we got tired of carrying water for Bush. So we started ignoring your threads. I still ignore them today for the most part. When I do I always post the same thing:
Name one DUer who opposed the war under Bush, but supports the war now.
Still waiting on a correct answer to that one (Sabrina just misread the question and named herself; but, of course, she does not support the war now, so does not qualify).
progressoid
(53,195 posts)Huh?
we started ignoring your threads. I still ignore them today for the most part. When I do I always post the same thing: ...
When you say "your threads" are you talking about me specifically or are you lumping a bunch of DUers together?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and escalated the War in Afghanistan?? Trash whatever you want, but you cannot trash facts by ignoring them. He's certainly a whole lot better than Bush, but US presidents, until US war policy changes, are not generally regarded as candidates for peace prizes anymore.
US policy is the problem. To change that and to make it possible for any president who does not support war as a solution to every problem, to have a chance to reach the WH, it is up to the people. But as we have seen, when people are scared they will support war.
I have no idea what Obama might do if he could do as he pleased. But until we have a free press, war will always be popular here with a majority of the people. That does not mean the rest of the world is happy about it. We are not the world, we are a very small part of it. The world now regards the US as the biggest threat to world peace. That is a fact.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I don't agree with drones and I part with him on that issue. But I do not and WILL NOT equate him with George W. Bush. I do not believe that this president is evil. I do not believe that he is deliberately trying to kill innocent people.
And I don't think most people in this country agree with the wars. See the latest polling data: most Americans no longer support Iraq or Afghanistan.
However, I do believe that the president is trying to end BOTH wars.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)But the sad reality is that in Aghanistan today, there are more soldiers than when he took over 4+ years ago. We still don't know what his "final" number will be, he intends on leaving troops there indefinitely. Of course, much like in Iraq when he tried the same thing, the Afghans may not "cooperate" on that point.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'equate Obama to Bush' 'evil' etc.Who said that? You did.
Most people here voted for this president, twice. I cannot imagine anyone here even thinking of voting for Bush, except for maybe one or two. That does not mean that people cannot disagree with him on policies. And when they do, it is does NOT mean they consider him to be 'evil' or 'equal to Bush'.
Frankly I am sick to death of this. We are CITIZENS of a democracy, we also are NOT Republicans who blindly support everything, no matter how wrong, their leaders do.
If it upsets you so much that people remain true to the principles they have always had and dare to continue to oppose policies they have always opposed, and refuse to be quiet about it now that Bush is gone, then there is nothing I can say to you except 'do not put words in my mouth I did not say'. We are all getting sick of these tactics. Anything that was wrong when Bush did it, is STILL wrong, period.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I don't believe that he is.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people. Are you actually denying that this president has not continued, in some cases enhanced, some of Bush's awful policies? The fact that people are disappointed in this fact demonstrates NOT that they equate Obama to Bush. It means the exact opposite, that they expected better of someone they respected enough to vote for.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)They've been doing that since 2008. No different than Faux News.
When he is wrong, I will say that he's wrong. I've already said that I disagreed with drones. And I made the point that I DON'T think Obama is evil.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that it was alerted on and probably hidden. People have an absolute right and DUTY to oppose bad policies. To ignore them only when it is their party in power, guarantees we will see plenty more of them. And the PTBs, the Corporations, count on using both parties to push policies that are bad for this country, good for them, but bad for the country.
Eg for any Democrat to even talk about SS being in any way connected to the Deficit is simply wrong. To even hint at cutting benefits is shameful for any Democrat to do. It is the obligation therefore of every Democrat to loudly protest such talk, no matter who it is coming from. Instead we see all kinds of excuses for this kind of talk when a Democrat is doing it from some people, while they would go ballistic if it was a Republican. And because those who want to privatize SS know this, they USE those 'my party right or wrong' people to get what they want.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)making calls and sending letters. I see a lot of whining and moaning on DU over this president, but little action.
That said, I trust President Obama to do the right thing. The difference between him and Bush is that I truly believe that Obama has a larger plan and doesn't want to hurt the middle class. I do not feel the same about Bush.
babylonsister
(172,761 posts)It's amazing, isn't it, that this poster consistently seems like a gop spokesperson, because he rarely has anything negative to say about the rethugs, but is always harping on the POTUS. 
Welcome to DU! 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
Rincewind
(1,358 posts)Obama was awarded the Peace prize for his efforts to secure bomb grade nuclear material at many sites around the world. He started this effort while a Senator, and has continued as President.
Maven
(10,533 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)it would make their propaganda even more transparent than it is.
madville
(7,847 posts)The withdrawal schedule was already in place when he took office.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Obama proposed the time line in Dec 2007.
Bush spent the spring of 2008 claiming that no time line should ever be adopted. And then in July 2008, Bush adopted Obama's time line in an attempt to take the Iraq war issue off the table for McCain.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)We're through the looking glass with some of these people.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Tea Party land from the other side.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The Obama administration was demanding immunity for US troops. However, due to the release of a WikiLeaks cable (Thank you, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange!) that detailed the execution of an entire family by multinational forces and the US air strike that destroyed the evidence, the Iraqis refused to give up their rights.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-iraq-massacre-inquiry/print
A diplomatic cable released this week by WikiLeaks revealed that a United Nations official, Philip Alston, told the US in 2006 he had received information that all the residents of the house had been shot in the head. His intervention was not made public at the time.
The letter has inflamed opinion in Iraq at a sensitive time in US-Iraq relations, amid difficult negotiations over retention of US bases in Iraq after the scheduled departure of US troops in December.
Iraqi officials said the new information was sufficient cause to deny the Americans any bases and demand all troops leave.
~snip~
As part of the negotiations over keeping US troops in Iraq, Washington is demanding immunity for all US military personnel. But Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Moussawi, said: "We will not give up the rights of the Iraqi people, and this subject will be followed."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122789/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#storylink=cpy
The cable closely tracks what neighbors told reporters for Knight Ridder at the time. (McClatchy purchased Knight Ridder in spring 2006.) Those neighbors said the U.S. troops had approached the house at 2:30 a.m. and a firefight ensued. In addition to exchanging gunfire with someone in the house, the American troops were supported by helicopter gunships, which fired on the house.
The cable also backs the original report from the Joint Coordination Center, which said U.S. forces entered the house while it was still standing. That first report noted: "The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals."
The report was signed by Col. Fadhil Muhammed Khalaf, who was described in the document as the assistant chief of the Joint Coordination Center.
The cable also backs up the claims of the doctor who performed the autopsies, who told Knight Ridder "that all the victims had bullet shots in the head and all bodies were handcuffed."
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, regarding a raid conducted by Multinational
Forces on March 15, 2006 at the house of Faiz Harrat Al-
Majma'ee in Iraq. This communication has been sent via e-
mail to IO/RHS. This communication is number 8 on the
Geneva 2006 Communications Log.
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06GENEVA763.html#
I have received various reports indicating that at least 10
persons, namely Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife
Sumay'ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three
children Hawra'a (aged 5) Aisha ( aged 3) and Husam (5
months old), Faiz's mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74),
Faiz's sister (name unknown), Faiz's nieces Asma'a Yousif
Ma'arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma'arouf (aged
3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi
(aged 23) were killed during the raid.
According to the information received, American troops
approached Mr. Faiz's home in the early hours of 15 March
¶2006. It would appear that when the MNF approached the
house, shots were fired from it and a confrontation ensued
for some 25 minutes. The MNF troops entered the house,
handcuffed all residents and executed all of them. After the
initial MNF intervention, a US air raid ensued that
destroyed the house.
Iraqi TV stations broadcast from the scene and showed bodies
of the victims (i.e. five children and four women) in the
morgue of Tikrit. Autopsies carries out at the Tikrit
Hospital's morgue revealed that all corpses were shot in the
head and handcuffed.
I am aware that the MNF confirmed that an air raid took
place that day in Balad and that it caused an unconfirmed
number of casualties. The US military attacked the house to
capture members of Mr. Faiz Harrat Al-Majma'ee's family on
the basis that they were allegedly involved in the killing
of two MNF soldiers who were killed between 6 to 11 March
2006 in the Al Haweeja area. The US military was further
reported in the media as stating that MNF troops attacked
the house in question to capture "a foreign fighter
facilitator for the Al Qaeda in Iraq network". Other reports
indicate that over the past five months, there have been a
significant number of lethal incidents in which the MNF is
alleged to have used excessive force to respond to perceived
threats either at checkpoints or by using air bombing in
civilian areas.
[IMG]
[/IMG]JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)incident from 2006, almost 3 years before he became President, stopped him.
ummm ... OK.
Simple question .... Are we out of Iraq on basically the same time line that Obama proposed as a candidate ... yes ... or no?
The answer is yes. He said it would be 16 months from when he took office, it was actually about 19 months from when he took office.
Posting multiple links about an incident that happened before he took office does not change that fact. Disagreements about SOFA's are common place, and such disagreements exist in any country where we have troops. Always have.
So, the first guy says the timeline was really Bush's not Obama's ... when that fails, you claim that even though its Obama's timeline, he didn't really want to do it.
But he did do it. He got us out of Iraq on his timeline. Period.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)What the fuck does this say?
The letter has inflamed opinion in Iraq at a sensitive time in US-Iraq relations, amid difficult negotiations over retention of US bases in Iraq after the scheduled departure of US troops in December.
Iraqi officials said the new information was sufficient cause to deny the Americans any bases and demand all troops leave.
~snip~
As part of the negotiations over keeping US troops in Iraq, Washington is demanding immunity for all US military personnel. But Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Moussawi, said: "We will not give up the rights of the Iraqi people, and this subject will be followed."
...
And that incident was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
from the WikiLeaks cable:
I would also recall that the Human Rights Committee has held
that a State party can be held responsible for violations of
rights under the Covenant where the violations are
perpetrated by authorized agents of the State on foreign
territory, "whether with the acquiescence of the Government
of [the foreign State] or in opposition to it". (See Lopez
v. Uruguay, communication No.52/1979, CCPR/C/OP/1 at 88
(1984), paras. 12.1-12.3.)
Finally, I wish to remind you that UN GA Resolution 59/191
of 10 March 2005, in its paragraph 1, stresses that "States
must ensure that any measure to combat terrorism complies
with their obligation under international law, in particular
international human right, refugee and humanitarian law".
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You want to argue that Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq for much much longer, but Iraq made them leave, and it was the immunity deal that caused it.
That makes zero sense.
The United States has negotiated SOFAs with every country where we have troops stationed. And while we would prefer total immunity for those troops, we do actually have agreements where this is not the case.
The reason we make such deals is because we actually WANT to keep troops in those countries, and so we negotiate DOWN from total immunity. And our troops stay.
You are arguing that Obama both (a) wanted the troops to stay, but (b) was unwilling to negotiate down from full immunity.
If he wanted them to stay, he could have easily negotiated down from total immunity. But he did not.
Why?
Because we were already withdrawing. We were not going to stay forever and so there was no reason to negotiate down from total immunity.
The very funny part of this is how much stock you put in what the Iraqi leadership says on this topic.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)"If he wanted them to stay, he could have easily negotiated down from total immunity. But he did not."
Anything but total immunity was not an option. Someone might get prosecuted for executing children and destroying the evidence, and that could have consequences.
Like the way the Obama administration squelched Spain's investigation of the Bush administration for torture claims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
Very funny how you're willing to accept Obama's dismissal of executions and torture committed during the Bush administration.
Looking Forward™ means never having to see children that have been shot in the head.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If we wanted our troops to stay, we could have done so again.
You seem to be confusing "total immunity" with "total local jurisdiction". Those are the extreme ends of the scale, not the only two points on it.
We have agreements with other countries where are troops do not have total immunity, but the local government does not have total jurisdiction either. The details of the agreement land between those extremes.
If Obama really wanted the troops to stay, the administration could have negotiated to a point between those extremes, and the troops would still be there.
But that did not happen. And there was no need for it to happen, because we were in fact, leaving.
Your argument about GITMO and about Bush and torture and executions, while hyperbolic, don't help advance the argument that "Obama really wanted to continue the Iraq war".
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)while you continue to spin nonsense to support the idol of your fantasy land.
Bushbots aren't the only ones denying reality to maintain their delusions.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There is nothing to spin.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that's what they call it, in history, in Iraq. We have military bases in Iraq. The Iraqis want all those US controlled institutions out of their country. We have military contractors in Iraq. We have troops in Iraq. And we have Oil Corporations in Iraq.
What we don't have is much reporting in OUR media on what is going on there. Fortunately we do have access to foreign media.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....negotiated by the Bush Administration.
The Obama Administration requested an extension from the Iraqi Government to exceed the deadline set in the SOFA Agreement,
and was denied.
Sorry if that offends you,
but it is the TRUTH.
Look it up.
was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq's continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Asinine.
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)Mad hound did not answer a previous poster's question. Did he support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Sounds like mad hound does hate Obama.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Was before this president, will be after he's gone. Unlike some, my beliefs aren't relative to who's in the White House.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If you haven't seen the ending of 2 wars started by Bush, then one needs to open ones eyes.
and as Richard Clarke(hero to us all in 2002-3) said "Drones are the most humane form of warfare and far more people die in one month in the USA from a private citizens guns and bullets, than all the drone deaths in history (and that doesn't even account for the fact that all those collateral damage probably would have died, plus thousands and thousands more,
from a ground war or by the terrorists themselves who the drones were for).
theKed
(1,235 posts)for voting for war in Iraq. The Peace Prize. I'll just be over here holding my breath for that. 
Beacool
(30,518 posts)if she had been the one elected president. I just find it amusing that when it comes to Obama his most fervent supporters lose all sense of perspective. He didn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. Heck, I don't think he deserves one right now.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)for her brave trip to Bosnia where she dodged sniper fire?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)on line petition to ..... 
Must be why they call it commondreams ... 2 paragraphs, and straight to sleep.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You mean "nobodies" like these? :
Eric Alterman
Noam Chomsky
Alexander Cockburn
Jeff Cohen
Juan Cole
Joe Conason
David Corn
Linh Dinh
Amy Goodman
Robert Fisk
Tom Hayden
Bob Herbert
Arianna Huffington
Jesse Jackson
Kathy Kelly
Naomi Klein
Paul Krugman
Michael Lerner
Michael Moore
Molly Ivins
Harold Pinter
Ralph Nader
Ted Rall
Robert Reich
Frank Rich
Arundhati Roy
Bernie Sanders
Robert Scheer
Cindy Sheehan
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Howard Zinn
All of whom have written articles for Commondreams? That the "nobody" you are referring to, friend? (might be time to expand YOUR horizons just a tad, if YOU haven't heard of Commondreams.org. because unless you are a Teabagger, being uninformed isn't really considered a virtue.)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)CommonDreams simply used that online group that no one has ever heard of to write today's "Obama is just like Hitler" article.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Ouch.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... straight to the personal insult. You're gone, forever.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
On edit: Wait, I just re-read your original commondreams list and response ... so let me get this straigght ..... the guy who accused ME of being a TeaBagger is whining about a PERSONAL ATTACK.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It was, like, y'know, super mean of you to show him/her that it was, y'know, meaningless.
(I like the ludicrous notion that Joe Conason would support Root Action's nonsense as well, much less Jesse Jackson! )
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)the most important online news source ever created!!!
Hell ... if some one over at CommonDreams gets an uncomfortable case of gas, we get at least 3 OPs here on DU about how Obama caused it.
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)I appreciate that you cleared that big misinformation on 99's post.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)about that Nobel Prize.
But now apparently, its an online "movement" with actual internet petitions.
demosincebirth
(12,827 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)He got the award for his work in securing loose nukes.
"The Committee attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," according to a committee press release issued Friday morning. "The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations."
In April, President Obama told a crowd of 20,000 in Prague that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to take the lead in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. He also noted in that speech, "Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."
The committee chose Obama to send a clear signal to the world that it want to advocate for international diplomacy, strengthen international institutions and work for a world without nuclear arms, Norwegian Nobel Committee President Thorbjørn Jagland said at the press conference to announce the Peace Prize winner. Jagland, who is also secretary general of the Council of Europe, added that the committee hopes the award will "enhance a little bit" Obama's peace efforts.
link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-nobel-peace
undeterred
(34,658 posts)
FSogol
(47,626 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Do we really need any more anti-Democratic, anti-Obama posts based on hyperbolic misinterpretations on US foreign policy?
ananda
(35,179 posts)Now I'll sign the one to revoke Obama's.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Another person who doesn't get why he received it even though the Committee was very specific.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'll never vote for Obama again.
Thanks, Madhound.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The new hater rhetoric goes like this: "Yes, fine, he knows how to get elected. Fine. Yes. He's good at that. But he doesn't know what to do once he is elected grumble grumble grumble..."
Getting them to admit that Obama is good at something is a big first step for some of these folks. I'll take it where I can get it!
too bad we were all suckered. Who knew they were going to let him keep the Nobel Peace Prize?
Like I said, there are some people who think Obama is the most evil man ever, a warmonger extraordinaire, who deserves no credit for anything. Health care law, bogus! Wall Street reform, pfft! Ending Iraq war, Bush did it! Getting bin Laden, assassination!
Their only goal is to prove that inequality, poverty and every social problem that has been festering for decades is the President's fault.
Duped into voting for President Obama?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022594997
The critics come a dime a dozen.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)will be attacked by the same people for not being as progressive as Obama was or fighting as hard as he did.
MADem
(135,425 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MineralMan
(151,281 posts)The usefulness of that is virtually nil. But, it does give people a chance to post something on DU, I suppose, that supports whatever meme is being pushed.
spanone
(141,648 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)poor thing. His wish will not come true. My heart breaks for Madhound and his guns.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)And in the ensuing years his own actions have only demonstrated how inappropriate it was.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)You think he should get another one.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)You knew that, right?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Funny how Jimmy Carter won for his efforts to promote democracy and we still have dictatorships and monarchies.
In fact, revoke all the Peace medals for everyone since not one of them solved everything.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)MineralMan
(151,281 posts)screeds. Odds are nil to nada.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FSogol
(47,626 posts)Sometimes the material is very weak. Whatta ya gonna do?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)specifically if you google the OP's name and "Rasmussen" and "Pulse Opinion" you will find a delightful thread.
FSogol
(47,626 posts) Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)There must be a ton of sweat in between the keys of that thing. Googling "what did Obama do to ruin the universe today?" three times a day must be so damn exhausting....
hack89
(39,181 posts)
Historic NY
(40,045 posts)that seems to be the message.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)P.S. Take away Kissinger's and Arafat's and then maybe we can talk.
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)a designated filing system for all such Internet petitions. They are handled with all of the care given to any material that should be sorted properly. Such petitions are filed as "Paper" as opposed to "Aluminum," "Plastic,"or "Glass." However, if such petitions are delivered on CD-ROM or DVD discs, they are filed as "Plastic."
The Nobel Committee is a recognized leader in properly processing materials.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) Enrique
(27,461 posts)are better than lips of sycophancy
Beacool
(30,518 posts)At least not at that time. No one would have deserved a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected president and for not being Bush. If he had received the award for actual accomplishments in the field, it would have been a different matter altogether.
Although, the whole process for awarding this Nobel had become a travesty way before the prize was awarded to Obama.
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)Did you read the citation for the Prize?
For pete's sake.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Some people see "Obama" followed by something good and have to rush to find something negative about it.
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)Oh, well.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)he'd have been mercilessly attacked. Ran as a deficit hawk in 1932, caved to Southern Dems on civil rights legislation, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent people based solely on their race, appointed a conservative to the Supreme Court, picked an anti-union conservadem as his VP, ordered the development of nuclear weapons, etc.
Now I'm not a purist so I look at the big picture. FDR was probably our greatest president. But the DUers who constantly attack Obama would have had a field day with FDR.
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)when they hold the office. FDR had a bunch of stuff to deal with. Some things he got right, and some things he screwed up. So it goes with every President.
President Obama has his own issues of the times. Some he has handled masterfully. Some were impossible to accomplish. Others are still pending. History is about the past. FDR's record is mixed in many areas. Obama's record has not yet become history. He's still the President. I'm for supporting him in what he's trying to do. I'll leave the bashing to others, I think.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Beacool
(30,518 posts)Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Obama deserved a Nobel Peace Prize when it was give to him in 2009????????
MineralMan
(151,281 posts)anything about their selection criteria, frankly. Apparently, they thought he deserved it. They're in charge of those prizes.
Sorry that I can't give you any further insights into the Committee's workings. You seem to have confused me with someone who knows more about that than I do.
But, I do have a straight face.
progressoid
(53,195 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607435
onenote
(46,147 posts)
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts)I'm sure they won't revoke it though. Maybe they can't. The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. As someone else stated Kissinger made a mockery of it.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Now, with his extensive record of escalating blood and destruction, it has become an obscene joke.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)He was sooooo cool. He deserved every accolade. Were there more worthy candidates for the Peace Prize? Hell yes, but never mind that.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)I love articles like this when they are posted here, it so enrages the "sales team" with their 10s of 1000s of ad-hom attacks and they never once attempt to read or understand the articles.
It's a pathetic reality that Nobel, like so many other orgs in our era of corruption, have become self-serving, irrelevant and meaningless.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Maybe two. I've got a bunch in the garage and a few kicking around in the attic.
He can't have the one I'm using as a couch leg though.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)for the simple act of keeping mr. 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' from coming anywhere near the office.
Or maybe it's the voters that deserve it. I dunno.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)he got it for not being George W. Bush... well, he's still not George W. Bush. They won't revoke it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)
alp227
(33,287 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Response to MadHound (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)if Obama became POTUS for the sole purpose of pissing you off.
And then campaigned his ass off to be re-elected when he realized he hadn't pissed you off quite enough, and needed four more years to complete the job.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)as realistic as the epic: "Dumb Obama"
Malcontents unite!