Obama to Accept Nobel Peace Prize as War President, Address Afghanistan Troop Surge

I hate to say it but anyone notice how Obama is ranking up in the world so quickly? anyone. no one sees this as odd or unnatural lucky? no one. everyone is blind?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Obama satisfied most domestic corporate special interests and lobbyists early in his presidency through the stimulus and bailout. He has done little to satisfy war-profiteers, though he has done little to stop them either.

We don't have just another corporate puppet in office this time, we have a supper-puppet that will also work to satisfy "globalist special interests" at the expense of our sovereignty and economy.

Obama wants the USA to be equal on a global scale... He wants to be the first Nobel Prize winning President of the WORLD.

War is peace,


Peace is war.


I have heard this before, from George Orwell's 1984.


It is called "doublethink" and is total psychological propaganda, war-mongering, murder, all of it. Disgusting and BEGGING to for a REAL change.

Neocons reportedly loved his speech, that should tell you something right there....

he tried to compare the current afghan situation to germans in WW2. I really don't see a lot of similarities...

But whatever, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin thought it was solid gold...

Dr. Ron Paul gives a little discourse on his thoughts about this absurdity, and possible conspirational motivating factors behind it ( One world gov anyone?). Who exactly was behind this nomination in the first place? Things that make you go hmmm....

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Anyone have the prez full speech or link to it, I missed seeing it?

I have started a petition to gather as many signees as possible to request the removal of obamas peace prize by the nobel institute

as Obama doesnt deserve the prize based on the rules laid out in Alfred Nobels will !

Obama promised the world change , yet he has done nothing to stem the flow of hatred across the world.
The US currently still at war with 5 difrerent countries , this being the main reason why he shouldnt have the prize

there are many reasons why , I could list them but id rather not for id be here all day

I wonder if Obama will get a second Nobel Peace Prize for bombing Libya.

Peace has a price and it is blood.

You won't first obtain it without blood and you won't be able to continually retire to it without blood.

All you peacelovers don't even understand what peace is in the first place. It is a struggle. The kind of peace the president is getting ridiculed over here does not exist except in imaginary fairyland. It probably took even him to become president to come to terms with this reality.

reply to post by psychosilocybin


He was probably looking on the shelf at it whilst on the phone giving the order. Crazy times

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Dr. Ron Paul gives a little discourse on his thoughts about this absurdity, and possible conspirational motivating factors behind it ( One world gov anyone?). Who exactly was behind this nomination in the first place? Things that make you go hmmm....

Ron Paul is just like any other politician, he plays up to his base's religious fervor in unattached reality. That's why you always hear him allude to imaginary conspiracies at every public venue yet never offers up concrete proof. He only needs to insinuate to give the impression he is on the same wavelength to steer his bases votes into his pocket. Who is his base? The 18-25 year old who has no actual experience in the real world. All he needs to do is get a few interns to go out on the net and tell him what the hot conspiracies are of the day then work angles to play into them fears. Hook line and sinker every time.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Peace has a price and it is blood.

You won't first obtain it without blood and you won't be able to continually retire to it without blood.

All you peacelovers don't even understand what peace is in the first place. It is a struggle. The kind of peace the president is getting ridiculed over here does not exist except in imaginary fairyland. It probably took even him to become president to come to terms with this reality.

Yes, most of us are aware that without a struggle, peace is not possible. However, the "struggles" that you refer to are no more. In their place, are organized, planned and deceptive manipulations. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Mexico. These are not the natural way of things, these are organized events.

Perhaps to you, war is natural, but you are confused and misguided. Like so many, you are the type to equate war with manhood and organized chaos with professionalism. You think you take the tough, "dark knight" approach when it comes to defending war. When the reality is, you're simply bolstering the deeds of evil men, and oligarchs, who want nothing from this world other than suffering for their pleasure.

The fact of the matter is, this coming Libyan war was never necessary. The many men, women and children who are about to die from bombing raids, and more to follow from the total chaos, was never necessary. I think you should ask yourself why you crave such a war, why you have an apathetic stance, a bloodlust of sorts, in defending all of this.

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Peace has a price and it is blood.

You won't first obtain it without blood and you won't be able to continually retire to it without blood.

All you peacelovers don't even understand what peace is in the first place. It is a struggle. The kind of peace the president is getting ridiculed over here does not exist except in imaginary fairyland. It probably took even him to become president to come to terms with this reality.

Yes, most of us are aware that without a struggle, peace is not possible. However, the "struggles" that you refer to are no more. In their place, are organized, planned and deceptive manipulations. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Mexico. These are not the natural way of things, these are organized events.

Perhaps to you, war is natural, but you are confused and misguided. Like so many, you are the type to equate war with manhood and organized chaos with professionalism. You think you take the tough, "dark knight" approach when it comes to defending war. When the reality is, you're simply bolstering the deeds of evil men, and oligarchs, who want nothing from this world other than suffering for their pleasure.

The fact of the matter is, this coming Libyan war was never necessary. The many men, women and children who are about to die from bombing raids, and more to follow from the total chaos, was never necessary. I think you should ask yourself why you crave such a war, why you have an apathetic stance, a bloodlust of sorts, in defending all of this.

edit on 17-3-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

Then explain to my why Obama, arguably the biggest pacifist presidential platform to run in modern times, is now seeing the world not the way you do but how it really is? The evidence is in his actions.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Then explain to my why Obama, arguably the biggest pacifist presidential platform to run in modern times, is now seeing the world not the way you do but how it really is? The evidence is in his actions.

Probably because he was a liar? Another deceitful politician in this world, of which there are many. There is no anti-war movement anymore, it simply doesn't exist like it used to. The only reason, is because it was never anti-war, it was only partisan opposition.

Also, tell me how he's the "biggest pacificist" in modern times. I never got that from him, he never advocated peace or anything of the sort. He only advocated a "reaching out", and that was it. A brief intermission for the confused masses, before he commenced with bombing Pakistan his first few weeks in office.

I find it unsettling, as you represent a percentage of the population who view Obama as peaceful, yet when he does horrible deeds, it is simply him being "realistic". What is Bush to you then, was he just a realist like Obama? So I suppose Obama's inauguration was just symbolism for turning the peaceniks into apathetic warmongers, like the neo-cons they hate so much. If you can't beat them, join them? What a victory.

reply to post by SyphonX


I said his platform was pacifist, it is what he ran on. His voting record in the Senate, when he did vote, was always against millitary action. His speaches were against war in Iraq. He has a public record of being a pacifist before he was elected. He vehemently was against the War on Terror and took the angle it should be a police action. He swore up and down to close Guantanimo, get rid of the Patriot Act etc.

Bush was led along by people who already understood the world to be what it is, a violent place. He had no public record in national affairs to go by but of course he had is fathers advisors and their influence in filling his cabinet. It was easy to see how he would handle world affairs in that light even before he got in office.

The irony is that reallity set in like always as the determining factor in decision making, even when it went against everything Obama seemingly stood for. With a heavily dragged foot, he chose the only path to real peace in each and every circumstance.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


His platform was deceptive. It only served to dull people's angst and rebellious attitude towards the (then current) status quo. When he got into office, he didn't come to the sudden realization that the "world is harsh" and changed his ways. He planned it from the start (rather his handlers planned and he did nothing but talk), which was to direct peoples anger, channel it, then release it as he pulled the rug from under everyone's feet. Then all the "peacelovers" as you so eloquently said, were left on their backs, on the dirty ground. Disillusioned and in still a state of shock.

Not even the supposed Yes We Can, change for the better, Peace-maestro did anything for the better. So now what?

This is what the Right-Left paradigm does. It channels peoples emotions and rebellion. Turns it around, changes it, crushes it.Even people that hated the war during Bush, now passively support it, because they were duped into believing his platform. They took much for granted, relied to heavily on appearances and false-presentations. Like the good doctor Ron Paul says, "It's sad."

Peace isn't war, and war isn't peace. It never was. It would only be "reality" if it was a last-chance, no-option event, which it never is, as the middle-east is sowed chaos from any party interested enough to participate. Perfect example of it too.

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

His platform was deceptive. It only served to dull people's angst and rebellious attitude towards the (then current) status quo. When he got into office, he didn't come to the sudden realization that the "world is harsh" and changed his ways. He planned it from the start (rather his handlers planned and he did nothing but talk), which was to direct peoples anger, channel it, then release it as he pulled the rug from under everyone's feet. Then all the "peacelovers" as you so eloquently said, were left on their backs, on the dirty ground. Disillusioned and in still a state of shock.

Not even the supposed Yes We Can, change for the better, Peace-maestro did anything for the better. So now what?

This is what the Right-Left paradigm does. It channels peoples emotions and rebellion. Turns it around, changes it, crushes it.Even people that hated the war during Bush, now passively support it, because they were duped into believing his platform.

Peace isn't war, and war isn't peace. It never was. It would only be "reality" if it was a last-chance, no-option event, which it never is, as the middle-east is sowed chaos from any party interested enough to participate. Perfect example of it too.

I agree. Obama is one huge deception. He has been bought and paid for by the puppet masters. Republicans and Democrats will argue, fight, and bicker in the public eye, but behind closed doors, they have the same agenda because their masters are all the same.

Obama promised to end the wars, end the patriot act, promised transparency, and be true Hope and Change for the people. Unfortunately, he is a continuation of his predecessor and further promoting the rise of the Fourth Reich.

reply to post by SyphonX


The "last chance no option event" is anticipated and necessary reactions are designed and carried out to avoid it.
Libya is a perfect example.
Events unfolded where Kaddafi was hours away from implementing genocide, killing literally over a million in Benghazi. This is a last chance no option event, well there is always the do nothing option but that is what the world condemned Clinton for in Rawanda.

Other leaders would have used the time before this event reached this point to act. They would have anticipated what types of events were to unfold if they did nothing, so they would have acted to avoid the innevitable. If a no fly zone was implemented when the rebels were at the gates of Tripoli, Gadaffi would be the one holed up in a city right now.

We would have never seen Kaddafi's forces smash their way to Benghazi but effective leadership would have anticipated that possibillity by not aiding the rebels. Lots of things are done so other things never have a chance of happening in this world.