Originally posted by Juvenal
View Post
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
Or for turning away from a posture of war.
Mikhail Gorbachev received a peace prize for not being "My vas pokhoronim!" Barack Obama received his for not being "You're either with us, or against us." The obvious rationale for Obama's prize was a turn away from the "adventurist" wars of his predecessor, that being how the Germans termed them when they refused to lend support. Bush didn't start the fight in Afghanistan, and I won't blame him for that. He did start the fight in Iraq, though, and he based it on ever changing justifications, including a constant, risible linkage to 9/11.
There were no WMDs beyond a few rotting remnants that couldn't even be excavated safely let alone be classed as ordnance.
And he threatened to take the fight across the middle east until the facts on the ground showed how a slimmed down army couldn't hold Iraq, let alone expand the conquest into Iran, or Syria, or wherever else he might want to take it. His policy had exactly the consequences detailed by his father as reasons why he chose to leave Saddam in place.
The Bush Doctrine included pre-emptive war as one of its three key pillars.
The entire world heaved a collective sigh of relief when Bush the Lesser left office. The Nobel committee gave his successor a peace prize. The connection was obvious. Obama's race had nothing more to do with it than his species. If elected, Mickey Mouse would have won a nod from the Nobel committee.
And yet, here you are, saying "They gave him a Peace Prize for doing nothing more than being black."
And getting called out for the bigotry.
And not understanding why.
Mikhail Gorbachev received a peace prize for not being "My vas pokhoronim!" Barack Obama received his for not being "You're either with us, or against us." The obvious rationale for Obama's prize was a turn away from the "adventurist" wars of his predecessor, that being how the Germans termed them when they refused to lend support. Bush didn't start the fight in Afghanistan, and I won't blame him for that. He did start the fight in Iraq, though, and he based it on ever changing justifications, including a constant, risible linkage to 9/11.
There were no WMDs beyond a few rotting remnants that couldn't even be excavated safely let alone be classed as ordnance.
And he threatened to take the fight across the middle east until the facts on the ground showed how a slimmed down army couldn't hold Iraq, let alone expand the conquest into Iran, or Syria, or wherever else he might want to take it. His policy had exactly the consequences detailed by his father as reasons why he chose to leave Saddam in place.
The Bush Doctrine included pre-emptive war as one of its three key pillars.
The entire world heaved a collective sigh of relief when Bush the Lesser left office. The Nobel committee gave his successor a peace prize. The connection was obvious. Obama's race had nothing more to do with it than his species. If elected, Mickey Mouse would have won a nod from the Nobel committee.
And yet, here you are, saying "They gave him a Peace Prize for doing nothing more than being black."
And getting called out for the bigotry.
And not understanding why.
That's a possibility, but not relevant here. In this case, I extended your admission of bigotry in the thread title, carefully avoiding any more onerous label. In response, you replaced your own label, bigotry, with a worse one, in order to use it as a rationale for dismissing criticism.
I went searching for anyone making the argument Obama received the Nobel for being black. I found one reference in an over-the-top youtube video, and a man-on-the-street interview snippet inside a Reuters write-up.
That's not an argument, not even a statement, just an opinion. And, it's an opinion crying out for an argument if we're to take it seriously.
That's not an argument, not even a statement, just an opinion. And, it's an opinion crying out for an argument if we're to take it seriously.
Comment