It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Well wouldn't you agree that going to war with a dictator and murderer like Hitler would be a move toward peace? That is much more for peace and justice than to let him indiscriminately kill millions of innocent jews.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Sorry Liberals, but I have to interject a little "fact" for the purpose of education and to "deny ignorance".
The Iraq war was NOT illegal, period.
It's a fact that the first gulf war in 1991 was NOT ended by a peace treaty between Saddam's Iraq and the Untied States and NATO.
It was ended by a "Cease Fire Armistice". What's the difference you ask??
Under International law any party in said cease fire agreement is able to resume armed conflict if either party violates the terms of said cease fire agreement. Saddam violated them repeatedly.
The United States was full within her right to resume the conflict at the FIRST violation of the armistice. Don't let the DNC or the mainstream media fool you into believing it was an "unjust" or "illegal" war, this is false.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Well, obama supports abortion, so I wonder how many people have died over the last 30+years of abortion and how many will continue to die once he passes "healthcare" with tax-dollar funded abortions.
I tend to agree with the alternative. anyone whom opposes abortion gets assigned 2-3 adopted children that would have been aborted...sort of like a 18 year buddy system...gratz on saving a life, here it is, now take care of it.
Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by Revolution-2012
What is funny about a man busting his hump for 7 years to keep the world safe. I don't find that funny.
Originally posted by sr_robert1
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Well, obama supports abortion, so I wonder how many people have died over the last 30+years of abortion and how many will continue to die once he passes "healthcare" with tax-dollar funded abortions.
Originally posted by kick Flip
reply to post by tothetenthpower
You know the old saying..... Can't have peace without war.
Originally posted by KonigKaos
Heres a simple questions, Now Libs answer it! What has Obama actually done in his Presidency to win the Nobel Peace Prize, hell anything hes done in 10 months worth mentioning. Lets make it complicated though without bashing Former President Bush, Former Vice President Cheney, Former Governor Sarah Palin or any other Republican or third party member for that matter?
[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]
Let’s get something straight: When Alfred Nobel, a Swedish arms manufacturer and inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his considerable estate to establish, among other things, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1895, it was established for "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.
Like Martin Luther King Jr., you don’t have to wait a lifetime to win. King was the youngest person ever to win the prize in 1964, the year after his “I Have a Dream,” speech. At that time, the peace associated with the civil rights movement was far from being achieved. The committee could have easily argued that King needed more experience. If they had done so, he would likely have won the award posthumously.
Using those standards, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres would not have won in 1994 for attempting to advance peace in the Middle East. Rigoberta Menchú Tum wouldn’t have won for her efforts at justice and reconciliation in post-civil war Guatemala. Aung San Suu Kyi would still be waiting for her prize since democracy and human rights would remain illusive in Burma. It’s like Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when he congratulated Obama today: “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”
So what hope did the committee glean from Obama over the past year? They rightly saw more movement on the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue than there has been achieved over the past eight years of the Bush administration. They saw U.S.-led efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty—something that Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei noted when he said that Obama "has done in nine months what many people would take a generation to do." They listened to an administration that has pledged to close down Guantanamo and leave Iraq. They noticed that for the first time since Jimmy Carter, American political discourse has focused on accountability of governments and human rights—Hillary Clinton’s recent condemnation of the murder and rape of opposition demonstrators in Guinea being but an example. For the first time in more than eight years, we have an administration that is willing to listen to the Middle East and willing to tackle the challenges associated with that elusive peace process. These struggles are complicated and frustrating and nowhere near from being over.
Any number of Obama efforts could go badly at anytime. But in issuing the prize to Obama, the committee decided to take the chance to do something relevant. It decided to give the prize as a call to action—in short, as a gesture of hope. Should Obama be humbled? He’d better be! He’s no Martin Luther King Jr., and he’s no Nelson Mandela. Anybody with any common sense would argue that much more needs to be done. Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and Yemen are on the back burner when they shouldn’t be. The health care debate in America keeps us exasperated. And we all feel that the critical issue of American joblessness deserves more attention. To be sure, hope is both what defines the Obama presidency and what leaves us so cynical about its shortcomings. But as we count up the reasons for pessimism, let’s also take the time to celebrate what has been achieved. Regardless of the troubles ahead, the message of this administration is being heard. The committee understood that America under Obama is again a part of the community of nations—willing to listen and willing to lead.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Originally posted by KonigKaos
Heres a simple questions, Now Libs answer it! What has Obama actually done in his Presidency to win the Nobel Peace Prize, hell anything hes done in 10 months worth mentioning. Lets make it complicated though without bashing Former President Bush, Former Vice President Cheney, Former Governor Sarah Palin or any other Republican or third party member for that matter?
[edit on 11-10-2009 by KonigKaos]
Your presumption is based on the premise that the Nobel Peace Prize is only awarded to those who have successfully achieved peaceful outcomes in the past. This is simply not the case. In fact, many of its past winners have died prior to seeing their dreams fulfilled or those dreams are, even now, yet to be fulfilled.
Source
Let’s get something straight: When Alfred Nobel, a Swedish arms manufacturer and inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his considerable estate to establish, among other things, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1895, it was established for "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
According to the rules, the prize is awarded, not for lifelong achievement, but to the one who has done the most to create an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation over the past year.
Like Martin Luther King Jr., you don’t have to wait a lifetime to win. King was the youngest person ever to win the prize in 1964, the year after his “I Have a Dream,” speech. At that time, the peace associated with the civil rights movement was far from being achieved. The committee could have easily argued that King needed more experience. If they had done so, he would likely have won the award posthumously.
Using those standards, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres would not have won in 1994 for attempting to advance peace in the Middle East. Rigoberta Menchú Tum wouldn’t have won for her efforts at justice and reconciliation in post-civil war Guatemala. Aung San Suu Kyi would still be waiting for her prize since democracy and human rights would remain illusive in Burma. It’s like Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when he congratulated Obama today: “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”
So what hope did the committee glean from Obama over the past year? They rightly saw more movement on the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue than there has been achieved over the past eight years of the Bush administration. They saw U.S.-led efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty—something that Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei noted when he said that Obama "has done in nine months what many people would take a generation to do." They listened to an administration that has pledged to close down Guantanamo and leave Iraq. They noticed that for the first time since Jimmy Carter, American political discourse has focused on accountability of governments and human rights—Hillary Clinton’s recent condemnation of the murder and rape of opposition demonstrators in Guinea being but an example. For the first time in more than eight years, we have an administration that is willing to listen to the Middle East and willing to tackle the challenges associated with that elusive peace process. These struggles are complicated and frustrating and nowhere near from being over.
Any number of Obama efforts could go badly at anytime. But in issuing the prize to Obama, the committee decided to take the chance to do something relevant. It decided to give the prize as a call to action—in short, as a gesture of hope. Should Obama be humbled? He’d better be! He’s no Martin Luther King Jr., and he’s no Nelson Mandela. Anybody with any common sense would argue that much more needs to be done. Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and Yemen are on the back burner when they shouldn’t be. The health care debate in America keeps us exasperated. And we all feel that the critical issue of American joblessness deserves more attention. To be sure, hope is both what defines the Obama presidency and what leaves us so cynical about its shortcomings. But as we count up the reasons for pessimism, let’s also take the time to celebrate what has been achieved. Regardless of the troubles ahead, the message of this administration is being heard. The committee understood that America under Obama is again a part of the community of nations—willing to listen and willing to lead.
[edit on 11-10-2009 by andrewh7]
Originally posted by mikerussellus
In other words, you can't answer his question.
And that is as telling as giving an answer.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire."
Again,.. Deny Ignorance. No one should be parroting the idea that the Iraq war of 2003 was "illegal" or "unjust", this is a fallacy.
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.