General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCelebrating Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and his efforts in the spirit of the award.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
Here's a great clip from December 2010: Rachel Maddow on securing loose nuclear materials
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/40859004
For the last two years, Democrats have held the White House as well as big majorities in both the House and the Senate. Their record of achievement in that time, even in the face of unified, at times totally random Republican opposition, Republican opposition even do things Republicans had proposed in the first place, unified Republican opposition even to their own ideastheir track record even in the face of that is historic.
Whether you agree or disagree with what Democrats have done in the first two years of President Obamas presidency, they have freaking done it. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women, expanding childrens health insurance, new hate crimes legislation that they said could not be done, tobacco regulation, credit card reform, student loan reform, the stimulus - which in addition to helping pull this country back from the brink of a Great Depression was also the largest tax cut ever, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the single largest investment in education in our country ever.
There was also a little thing you may have heard of called health reform. Also, Wall Street reform, the improvements to the new G.I. bill, the most expansive food safety bill since the 1930s.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40898769/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
Obama to Renew Drive for Cuts in Nuclear Arms
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/politics/obama-to-renew-drive-for-cuts-in-nuclear-arms.html
Neocons:
Obama's 'nuclear zero' rhetoric is dangerous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-nuclear-zero-rhetoric-is-dangerous--and-unrealistic/2013/03/29/917f2036-987b-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)as incredibly cynical. As I'm sure people are about to point out, Obama's peace record is not exactly spotless.
Bryant
Lasher
(27,502 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Now, in a despicable article in Military Times, the US military says that children are legitimate targets in the war in Afghanistan because sometimes the Taliban and other insurgents use kids.
In the original incident, which I cited in October, The New York Times reported it this way:
The case of three children allegedly killed in a coalition strike was reported by local officials in Helmand Provinces Nawa district. The officials said that the children were killed in a NATO strike on Sunday afternoon as they were gathering dung to burn as fuel, a common practice in the desert reaches of southern Afghanistan where there are few trees.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/171582/us-military-approves-bombing-children?rel=emailNation#
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748
Ignoring it does not make it go away. That the President is a Democrat does not make it morally conscionable:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171582/us-military-approves-bombing-children
...But a Marine official here raised questions about whether the children were innocent. Before calling for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System mission in mid-October, Marines observed the children digging a hole in a dirt road in Nawa district, the official said, and the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission.
Shockingly, the article quotes a senior officer saying that the military isnt just out to bomb military age males, anymore, but kids, too:
It kind of opens our aperture, said Army Lt. Col. Marion Ced Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. In addition to looking for military-age males, its looking for children with potential hostile intent.
Opens our aperture, indeed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Did you hear that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
progressoid
(49,827 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Ironic, since the Bushes have reduced more nukes."
...send that to the Nobel committee.
progressoid
(49,827 posts)post this OP?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)it appears you believe that the Bushes are more deserving.
Lugar praised Obama's "productive" work on nonproliferation that took "next critical step" on the issue. In an August 2008 Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette op-ed (retrieved from the Nexis database), Lugar wrote that "Sen. Obama has worked with me, productively, on non-proliferation issues. We jointly introduced a bill that strengthened U.S. defenses against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
He further wrote:
Sen. Obama joined me in developing legislation in 2005 -- long before he was a presidential candidate -- to address emerging proliferation risks. After significant study and site visits, it became clear to us that additional safeguards were required to strengthen the lines of defense between unsecured weapons of mass destruction and U.S. borders and to deal with vulnerable stockpiles of conventional weapons and hand-held anti-aircraft missiles. Lightweight anti-aircraft missiles were especially at risk. There may be as many as 750,000 such missiles, known formally as man portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s.
Loose stocks of small arms and other weapons also help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and, as we have seen repeatedly, provide the ammunition for those who attack peacekeepers and aid workers trying to stabilize and rebuild war-torn societies. The Lugar-Obama initiative disposes of artillery shells like those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly to American forces in Iraq. Lugar-Obama also strengthens our ability to work with allies to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction or material that could be used in a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. This enhances an important second line of defense between weapons of mass destruction and the American people.
The Nunn-Lugar program has provided a solid foundation, valuable experience and measurable results. With the Lugar-Obama legislation, we took the next critical step forward to refocus and reinvigorate our country's non-proliferation mission.
In 2005, I traveled with Sen. Obama to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan to oversee a number of proliferation projects. In Russia, we visited Nunn-Lugar sites where nuclear weapons were being dismantled and stored. In Ukraine, we inspected the Donetsk State Chemical Production Plant, a conventional weapons destruction facility where the U.S. has taken the lead in a three-year NATO program to destroy the weapons. At that facility, more than 117,000 tons of ammunition and 1.1 million small arms and light weapons are slated for destruction within 12 years. During the visit we encouraged Ukrainian officials to expedite destruction efforts and expand cooperative threat reduction of conventional weapons. In Azerbaijan, we observed sea interdiction exercises in the Caspian Sea and encouraged leaders there to continue their cooperation with the United States.
These programs are ongoing. For a relatively small investment they are making a huge difference to U.S. and global security.
- more -
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/04/09/right-wing-media-mockery-ignores-obamas-nuclear/163014
progressoid
(49,827 posts)Irony.
1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I said nothing about the Bushes being more deserving."
...to this: Did you hear that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
... you posted a chart along with this comment: "Ironic, since the Bushes have reduced more nukes."
What was the "ironic" point since "the Bushes" were not considered by the Nobel committee, nor were they particually known for their personal efforts at disarmament?
A new era of nuclear weapons / Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-new-era-of-nuclear-weapons-Bush-s-buildup-2509856.php
McCain breaks with Bush on nuclear disarmament
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/world/americas/28iht-28mccainbush.13289423.html
progressoid
(49,827 posts)You aren't that obtuse.
But kudos for deflection and feigned ignorance.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Oh c'mon. You aren't that obtuse.
But kudos for deflection and feigned ignorance."
...show me where Bush personally worked on, pushed or advocated nuclear disarmament or stop the "feigned ignorance."
hughee99
(16,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)There have been many more since, not to mention civilians.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
rug
(82,333 posts)The only FAIL is truth in the face of hypocrisy and shilling.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The only FAIL is truth in the face of hypocrisy and shilling."
...comprehension:
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
rug
(82,333 posts)I did. You should try it as well. It helps if you overcome your blind spots.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I did. You should try it as well. It helps if you overcome your blind spots.
Rachel Maddow- Obama diplomacy returns U.S. to leadership role
rug
(82,333 posts)Keep digging.
"Keep digging."
...here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2608286
rug
(82,333 posts)My time in the Obama administration turned out to be a deeply disillusioning experience."
BY VALI NASR |MARCH/APRIL 2013
It was close to midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, and I was about to go to sleep when my iPhone beeped. There was a new text message. It was from Richard Holbrooke. It said, "Are you up, can you talk?" When I called, he told me that Barack Obama had asked him to serve as envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He would work out of the State Department, and he wanted me to join his team. "No one knows this yet. Don't tell anyone. Well, maybe your wife." (The Washington Post reported his appointment the next day.)
I first met Holbrooke, the legendary diplomat best known for making peace in the Balkans and breaking plenty of china along the way, at a 2006 conference in Aspen, Colorado. We sat together at one of the dinners and talked about Iran and Pakistan. Holbrooke ignored the keynote speech, the entertainment that followed, and the food that flowed in between to bombard me with questions. We had many more conversations over the next three years, and after I joined him on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2007, we spoke frequently by phone.
Now, making his sales pitch, Holbrooke told me that government is the sum of its people. "If you want to change things, you have to get involved. If you want your voice to be heard, then get inside." He knew I preferred to work on the Middle East and in particular Iran. But he had different ideas. "This [Afghanistan and Pakistan] matters more. This is what the president is focused on. This is where you want to be."
He was persuasive, and I knew that we were at a fork in the road. Regardless of what promises candidate Obama made on his way to the White House, Afghanistan now held the future -- his and America's -- in the balance. And it would be a huge challenge. When Obama took office, the war in Afghanistan was already in its eighth year. By then, the fighting had morphed into a full-blown insurgency, and the Taliban juggernaut looked unstoppable. They had adopted a flexible, decentralized military structure and even a national political organization, with shadow governors and district leaders for nearly every Afghan province. America was losing, and the enemy knew it. It was a disaster in the making.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/04/the_inside_story_of_how_the_white_house_let_diplomacy_fail_in_afghanistan?page=full&wp_login_redirect=0
Blue links are fun.
"When Holbrooke died in December 2010, Clinton kept his office alive, but the White House managed to take over AfPak policy, in part by letting the Pentagon run Afghanistan and the CIA, Pakistan. Clinton wanted John Podesta, an influential Democratic Party stalwart who served as President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, to succeed Holbrooke. But Podesta was too influential (including with the president) and too high-profile, and that would have made it difficult for the White House to manage him and snatch AfPak policy. The White House vetoed the choice."
...happened since 2010.
Secretary of Schlep
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/30/secretary_of_schlep_hillary_clinton_photos_countries_travel
Kerry in Kabul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022569412
Karzai says media misinterpreted comments on U.S. and Taliban
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/world/asia/afghanistan-kerry-karzai
"Blue links are fun."
Agree.
rug
(82,333 posts)The first link is a slideshow.
The second link is travel photos.
The third link is an article on trying to rein in Karzai after another clusterfuck.
Blue links are more fun when they have substance.
"The third link is an article on trying to rein in Karzai after another clusterfuck. "
...third link is Karzai calling out the MSM, but that's a matter of perspective.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen/
Compiled from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports
PAKISTAN
Name | Age | Gender
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)We are absolutely 100% outraged when 20 children are killed here in the US but for some reason we don't care if children are killed in other countries. I just don't get it.
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)You don't like Obama do you?
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Right?
You kind of said it right there...
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)And many children died at the hands of bullets, bombs, starvation due to troops on the ground and bombers in the air. He ignored warnings about Obl and 911 happened. Children died in Afghanistan by bush's choice and orders. He is the evil monster you Obama haters are supporting.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Sad, insults start flying already.
You replied to a post lamenting the fact that we worry so much about the 20 kids killed in Newtown, but not the scores of brown kids killed by the US...you replied with a comment stating that bush was far worse than Obama because of "bush's choice and orders"
To me, that's making a direct comparison between Obama & bush.
Why are the wars still going on?
Why are the drone strikes still happening? Still killing innocent people? Is that still bush's fault?
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)You are a bush supporter. Plain and simple,
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Is this what passes for intelligent conversation?
Ask simple questions, get insults and "bush supporter" accusations.
Weak.
I will not alert though...people need to see stuff like this.
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)I agree with Pro sense. You want to talk about drones start a new thread. obama
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You are ether with us or against us...
If you don't support the status quo then you must be one of the bad people.
How many times do they have to run that game on us before we wake up?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)But you are
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)It's all very personal with this kind. IN reality, they don't give a rat's ass about those kids. They are merely a tool advance their anti-Obama spew.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I don't know why you don't understand the simple logic of that, our President uses remarkable, some would say admirable, restraint by not resorting to nuclear strikes on children, wedding parties, bystanders and even the occasional terrorists (disclaimer: intel credibility may very, but if 1 in 1000 forners are terrorist we are bound to kill one for every thousand funny talking brown forner we kill). He is using non-nuclear missiles so he is spreading peace!
He is clearly not only following in the spirit of the nobel prize, he likely deserves another one at the end of his term.
Until he uses nukes, he is spreading peace drones that promote world wide cooperation.
HE ISN'T USING NUKES SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS A FAIL!!
How is that not obvious, sheesh.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It is especially tragic to us when children are killed, I believe it is partly instinctive to feel that way about them, but also because our experiences tend to reveal them to be particularly vulnerable, fragile, and innocent when compared to adults.
I don't want them killed at all, no matter if the projectile is bullet sized or missile sized.
I only speak for myself, as there are obviously sociopaths that are not affected when they hear of children being shot, just as there are sociopaths that are not affected when they hear that they are blown up as a matter of policy, or the expediency of targeting without regard to the proximity of children and other civilians.
patrice
(47,992 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Pentagon Creates New Medal for Cyber, Drone Wars http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33941.htm
February 14, 2013 "AP" -- They fight the war from computer consoles and video screens.
But the troops who launch the drone strikes and direct the cyber attacks that can kill or disable an enemy may never set foot in the combat zone. Now their battlefield contributions may be recognized with the first new combat-related medal to be created in decades.
<>The new blue, red and white-ribboned Distinguished Warfare Medal will be awarded to individuals for "extraordinary achievement" related to a military operation that occurred after Sept. 11, 2001. But unlike other combat medals, it does not require the recipient risk his or her life to get it.
<>Response in the cybersphere was immediate and divided, and more often biting. While some acknowledged the contributions of cyber and drone warriors and said the award was the right thing to do, others dubbed the medal the "Geek Cross" and speculated that young video-gamers may soon get Purple Hearts for their animated wounds.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)It always has been.
The results of policy are what matters, not some prize he was given, particularly considering when it was awarded.
And the results of policy speak for themselves. Woo me with science seems to be covering the bases pretty well.
No past award will undo the REAL CONDITIONS AND RESULTS of policy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Kissinger still has his.
FAIL
The President earned his.
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)My point exactly.
It is BS and it doesn't mean shit.
I don't care if they take it away from Obama (not gonna happen) or give him 5 more.
THE RESULTS OF POLICY ARE WHAT MATTERS.
The parents of children killed by drones don't give a flying fuck about a peace prize.
Get it?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)So why's are some people so upset?
Look at this thread.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)I see people posting information about REAL CONDITIONS AND RESULTS OF POLICY in order to counter the rhetorical propaganda.
It is fucked up that you think this is so funny, though. But I have no emotional investment in you so don't worry, I'm not 'upset'.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I see people posting information about REAL CONDITIONS AND RESULTS OF POLICY in order to counter the rhetorical propaganda. "
...posted any information refuting the President's efforts on nuclear disarmament?
I see a lot of posts about drones and Afghanistan.
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)An article about US hypocrisy on nukes policy under Obama and why it is counterproductive to disarmament. However, don't take this as agreement with you that drones and other issues of violent and deadly policy are not relevant here.
No nation should own nuclear arms not Iran, not North Korea, and not their critics who take the moral high ground
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/04/nuclear-weapons-must-be-eradicated
We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.
Until we overcome this double standard until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.
Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
---snip---
But today nine nations still consider it their prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small, whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/04/nuclear-weapons-must-be-eradicated
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)DO "give a flying fuck".
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)I don't think so.
Again, it is about REAL POLICY AND CONDITIONS.
They (we) sure do give a fuck about the fact that while the administration tries to preach disarmament to other countries (most of whom have no nukes and don't ever plan to have them) we will most likely continue to have 1000+ nuclear weapons deployed and the committed funding for the next 10 years to keep this arsenal up, and to modernize delivery systems for these weapons. The US will continue to provide financial and material support to the only nuclear power in the middle east. The US will continue to be prepared for the building of future nukes with a stockpile of enriched uranium.
And that's just off the top of my head.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022250595
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21176279
The use of drones has become increasingly controversial
The UN is launching an inquiry into the impact on civilians of drone strikes and other targeted killings.
There is a need for "accountability and reparation where things have gone badly wrong", the British lawyer heading the investigation told journalists.
Ben Emmerson QC, a UN special rapporteur, said the "exponential" rise of drone technology required a proper legal framework to be put into place.
The inquiry will study the impact of drone strikes in five places.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)have some Republicans to defend: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2605246
This OP seems to have hit a nerve.
eom
a great clip from December 2010: Rachel Maddow on securing loose nuclear materials
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/40859004
President Obama won a Nobel Prize for his efforts, have your heard?
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)set into a lordly crown then.
Obama's efforts in the arena have been laudable but let's not pretend he had been the point man on proliferation over many years. This is pushing too hard on something of little contextual importance to polish up the old legacy, I reckon.
G_j
(40,366 posts)and I heard Kissinger got one too..
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/us-violating-human-rights-children-says-un-committee
The Obama Administration recently underwent its first U.N. treaty body review, and the resulting concluding observations made public yesterday should be a cause for alarm. The observations, issued by independent U.N. experts tasked with monitoring compliance with the international treaty on the rights of children in armed conflict (formally known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict or "OPAC" , paint a dark picture of the treatment of juveniles by the U.S. military in Afghanistan: one where hundreds of children have been killed in attacks and air strikes by U.S. military forces, and those responsible for the killings have not been held to account even as the number of children killed doubled from 2010 to 2011; where children under 18 languish in detention facilities without access to legal or full humanitarian assistance, or adequate resources to aid in their recovery and reintegration as required under international law. Some children were abused in U.S. detention facilities, and others are faced with the prospect of torture and ill-treatment if they are transferred to Afghan custody.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)FAIL
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Obama is not a complete failure, he isn't satan.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"give it a break ProSense Obama is not perfect, he is not a god."
...because an OP celebrating the President's Nobel Prize is the same as implying that he is "perfect" and a "god."
Your response like some of those in this thread is illustrative of the disdain some have for seeing anything remotely positive assigned to this President.
I mean, look at this thread.
patrice
(47,992 posts)If some disagree with "Obama is Satan", maybe that has something to do with the fact that it appears, not only that the anti-Obama position absolutely NEVER weighs anything positive as anything but 0, but also because we almost never see anything that amounts to at least a hypothetical analysis of the situations and the possible/effective alternatives: "Assuming (for the sake of debate) that objectives a, b, and c (which we may disagree about) would be useful to outcomes x, y, and z, (which we do agree about), here is what PO did, I., II., and III., and that was wrong, because i., ii., iii. would have accomplished x, y, and z much more effectively and here's how _________________, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , and .......................... ."
Unlike the destroy Obama clique's attitude toward Obama's positives, I'm sure that O defenders don't regard the negatives as 0, especially drone deaths. However, when I and probably some others see characterization of our positions as "Obama is a god", that strongly suggests an INTENTIONALLY introduced WARP in the discussion, especially since we also never see any kind of point-by-point analysis of the situations and the alternatives and the possible outcomes, such as I have sketched above.
PLUS, extremely significant by it's absence, NO mention of anykind of functional role for a reform-oriented third factor, like the U.N., the IMF, or even the World Court to deal with some authentic criminals who draw proto-world-police responses like drone programs.
Then throw in the fact that the destroy Obama crowd also appears to be quite tolerant of wide open assault weapons markets anywhere and everywhere in the world (though we should be looking more closely at corelations between private assault weapons profits relative to various foreign resources), and perhaps you can see why some of us just may be a bit skeptical about the rational basis for the destroy Obama rhetoric.
Simply put, the case is NOT made and no one seems to care about anything more than another opportunity to talk trash on just about the only person who is stepping up and trying, right or WRONG, to take responsibility for bad things that are happening.
After-all, isn't "Obama is a demon" just as irrational as "Obama is a god"?
*S*O*L*U*T*I*O*N*S* are LOST in such FALSE dichotomies and the destroy Obama clique appears not to care about that one bit, because it's ever so much more important to destroy Obama than it is to reveal rational alternatives to REAL world problems . . . . WHY??? do you suppose THAT is? I'd honestly like to know.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Sadly, no one will touch it with a 10 foot pole because you absolutely nailed it.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)in a thread where the OP keep posting FAIL to any post that remotely suggests Obama is not a god
patrice
(47,992 posts)reaction to OP would not contain an assumption about something OP did not say & OP made no claims about Obama being god and no one asked OP about that before making accusations.
If a person praised a different well known figure, Ms. Whatever, as one who had received some national or international honors, would you accuse that person of being a proponent of Ms. Whatever's divinity? No you wouldn't. You would not make that kind of obvious mistake in logic in a situation like that, so the fact that you insist upon making that irrational contention now means you are possibly prejudiced against anything having to do with PO or perhaps you are crazy, in either case . . . it's going to take more than a smilie to fix your ill logic.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Thanks for countering the propaganda. It's a neverending task, innit?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thanks for countering the propaganda. It's a neverending task, innit?"
Propaganda = Nobel Prize Press release awarding President Obama the prize.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)definition of propaganda, actually.
I'm still not clear on what you think is so funny about innocent children and other civilians being (sometimes deliberately) killed as a result of US policy.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)get paid!
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)New US Drone Strike "Double-Taps" Indicate Possible War Crimes
"NYU student Josh Begley is tweeting every reported U.S. drone strike since 2002, and the feed highlights a disturbing tactic employed by the U.S. that is widely considered a war crime.
Known as the "double tap," the tactic involves bombing a target multiple times in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second strike often hits first responders.
UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Christof Heyns said that if there are "secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime."
In September the NYU and Stanford law schools released a report detailing how double taps by U.S. drones affect the Pakistani population, and noted that "high-level" militants killed only accounted for 2 percent of U.S. drone strike casualties."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12#ixzz2EuyhGpAp
ProSense
(116,464 posts)NEW YORK A report in The Daily Beast today said that the Obama administration is considering taking targeted killing responsibilities from the CIA and placing them under the control of the military.
Ending the CIAs role as a paramilitary killing organization would be an important step in the right direction, said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project. President Obama took the CIA out of the torture and detention business, and its past time to do the same with targeted killings. As important as this change would be, the killing program is still wrapped in unwarranted secrecy, and is still unlawful in its scope, dangerous, and unwise. Far greater transparency and accountability for targeted killings must accompany any change of responsibility, and it remains to be seen whether the secretive Joint Special Operations Command will address those concerns.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/drone-program-may-shift-cia-military
Posted that here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022542135), it sank like a stone.
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)US Killed Hundreds of Children in Afghanistan, Says New Report -- US Rejects Report
AlterNet / By Alex Kane
US Killed Hundreds of Children in Afghanistan, Says New Report -- US Rejects Report
A United Nations committee says the US military is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children in Afghanistan over the past four years.
February 11, 2013 |
A United Nations committee has accused the United States government of being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children in Afghanistan over the past four years. But the committees report was quickly rejected by the U.S.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child reported that it was alarmed by reports that hundreds of children died as a result of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan because of a reported lack of precautionary measures and indiscriminate use of force, the Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend. The UN report also condemned the arrest and detention of children in Afghanistan.
But the U.S. military said the reports were unsubstantiated and cited figures from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan showing that the vast majority of civilian deaths and injuries in Afghanistan over the last several years were caused by insurgents.
In response to the UN report, Human Rights Watch called on the U.S. to promptly carry out the recommendations of a United Nations committee of experts to improve protection of children abroad from armed conflict. ................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/us-killed-hundreds-children-afghanistan-says-new-report-us-rejects-report
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355836
He recommends choosing the law "which we all at least pretend is the bedrock of our republic."
He was speaking of the targeted killings. He believes they need to be brought out from behind the "veil of secrecy."
How America Kills
People in the administration have told reporters that they have implemented an extremely rigorous screening process inside the White House to decide who ends up on the list, that the president himself approaches his responsibility to administer the program with solemnity and care, and that the policy has been efficient and effective in decimating al-Qaeda and other affiliated terrorist groups. A senior U.S. official said as early as 2009, The enemy is really, really struggling These attacks have produced the broadest, deepest and most rapid reduction in al-Qaida senior leadership that weve seen in several years.
But before any of the specifics of the programs merits can be properly and fully debated, it has to be brought out from behind the veil of secrecy which now cloaks it. That process started this week when my colleague Michael Isikoff obtained a heretofore secret Department of Justice memo that outlines the administrations legal arguments for why it believes it has the authority to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or an associated force if an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined its appropriate.
....
Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime.
But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.
Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Iraqi Security Forces (post-Saddam) Killed: 16,623
Coalition Forces Killed: 4,805 (4,487 U.S.)
Contractors Killed: 1,554
Awakening Councils Killed: 1,002+
Iraqi combatant dead (invasion period): 7,60011,000
Insurgents (post-Saddam) Killed: 21,22126,405 (2003-2011)
Civilian casualties: up to about 1 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435
At the time of this writing, the US is believed to have conducted 344 total strikes in Pakistan, 52 between June 17, 2004 and January 2, 2009 (under President Bush),[62] and 292 strikes between January 23, 2009 and September 2, 2012 (under President Obama).[63] Those numbers, which TBIJ has pieced together from available media reports,[64] may underestimate the total number of strikes, especially during the early years of the drone program.
Between 2004 and 2007, the Pakistani government under President Musharraf attempted to hide the fact of US strikes (and Pakistans role in them) by contending that the strikes were either Pakistani military operations, car bombs, or accidental explosions.[65] Many of those claims were contradicted within days or weeks by anonymous leaks and eyewitness accounts,[66] and by local journalists gathering evidence at the scenes of the attacks.[67] In one unusually well-publicized incident, an official in the Musharraf regime reportedly asserted that the Pakistani military had conducted a strike on a religious school in Bajaur that killed over 80 people, including 69 children.[68] One of Musharrafs aides reportedly told a Pakistani media source that the government believed it would be less damaging to claim it had killed 82 people than it would be to reveal that it had agreed to let the US carry out strikes on Pakistani soil.[69] Musharrafs administration was reported to admit that the strike had been a US operation only after political backlash from the strike turned out to be much greater than the government had anticipated.[70] Considering the Musharraf governments apparent efforts to cover up the USs role in drone strikes, and the fact that drones often target remote or isolated areas, it is possible that other strikes from the 2004-2007 period have yet to be identified.
Our teams fieldwork in Pakistan documented at least one incident that might fit this pattern. We interviewed 15 Waziris, including four survivors and four more who visited the strike site within hours or days of the attack, who described to us what they believed to have been a drone strike that took place on June 10, 2006.[71] The attack took place in the early morning of June 10 on a workers bunkhouse in a chromite mining camp in the mountains near Datta Khel. In the bunkhouse, a large group of young miners and woodcutters were asleep. Missiles killed 22 and badly injured four. The press described the incident as a helicopter gunship attack carried out by the Pakistani military,[72] based on statements by Pakistani officials claiming responsibility.[73] The survivors and those killed were asleep before the first explosion and knocked unconscious shortly thereafter. In light of the classification by media sources (helicopter strike), the lack of available physical evidence given the remoteness of the location, the lack of eyewitness testimony to the source of the strike, and the significant passage of time since the attack, our research team could not determine whether this incident was a US drone strike or Pakistani helicopter strike, and so chose not to include this event as a drone strike.[74] Nonetheless, given the extensive loss of life, this incident should investigated thoroughly by competent authorities.
http://livingunderdrones.org/numbers/
FAIL
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is a FAIL. Let's strive for a world where we, the strongest country, dont kill children.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)There's plenty of blame to go around, why let terrorists off the hook for their disgusting kiddie-shield tactics? This is why war sucks, both sides are at fault and neither wants to admit it. So it continues, endlessly.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Bonobo - 2,305 killed by Obama in drone strikes in Pakistan by my count
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
I decided to count them up. I started counting kids separately too, but then I realized that almost none of them reported kids at all after some point.
When the numbers were given as a range, say "between 16 - 20", I counted it as 18.
When the numbers said "at least 20", I counted it as just 20.
I did not count wounded, so all in all this was a pretty conservative count.
Remember now, this is JUST Pakistan and just since Obama got in office.
2,305 people who did not shoot back and who were merely suspected.
Rules of combat do not apply. It is assassination by video game.
Two thousand three hundred and 5.
They all had family too. Feel safer?
Add up Yemen and Afghanistan now. Then add the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is a lot of blood and a lot of children blood and a lot of innocent blood.
People, remember what you expect and demand in a representative of your country --or at least what you grew up expecting.
Please come to your damned senses if you feel this can be defended morally.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"2,305 killed by Obama in drone strikes in Pakistan by my count"
...to misinformation, here are the fact surrounding the drone strikes under President Obama.
The report, Living Under Drones, states that between August 2010 and April 2012, civilian casualties were 117 to 284, including 17 children.
It also states that from January 2009 to December 2011, which ecompasses some of the above data, 297 to 559, including about 64 children.
See Appendix C, pages 178 - 179.
Living Under Drones
http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/organization/149662/doc/slspublic/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf
The majority of the strikes were in Pakistan.
http://livingunderdrones.org/
The two issues, drone strikes and targeted killing, are intertwined, but the solution to targeted killings is separate from what to do about drone.
Did you hear that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-did-or-did-you-not-kill-anwar-al-awlaki/2013/02/08/0347f4de-70c9-11e2-a050-b83a7b35c4b5_story.html?hpid=z2
David Cole teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University and is the legal affairs correspondent for the Nation. He is the author of The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable.
There are plenty of problems with President Obamas targeted killings in the war against terrorism: The policy remains secret in most aspects, involves no judicial review, has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians, has been employed far from any battlefield and has sparked deep anti-American resentment in countries where we can ill afford it.
But when it comes to the particular legal issue raised in a recently leaked white paper from the Justice Department namely, whether it is legal to kill Americans with drones one problem looms largest: The policy permits the government to kill its citizens in secret while refusing to acknowledge, even after the fact, that it has done so.
There may be extraordinary occasions when killing a citizen is permissible, but it should never be acceptable for the government to refuse to acknowledge the act. How can we be free if our government has the power to kill us in secret? And how can a sovereign authority be accountable to the people if the sovereign can refuse to own up to its actions?
When Argentinas military junta secretly abducted and killed its citizens during that countrys dirty war in the 1970s, the world labeled these acts disappearances and condemned them as violations of human rights. A disappearance is not just an abduction or killing, but an unacknowledged abduction or killing. To disappear citizens not only deprives them of their liberty or life without fair process but is deeply corrosive of democratic politics, casting a shadow of fear over all.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)because of the sheer number ProSense is using the word Fail, clearly trying to pick a fight.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I'm going to push one of those buttons just because of the sheer number ProSense is using the word Fail, clearly trying to pick a fight."
...I'm trying to keep the thread on topic, which is the President's Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament.
The OP has nothing to do with Afghanistan or drones.
G_j
(40,366 posts)yourself the ultimate authority as you pronounce FAIL on all who don't agree.
"It seems that you consider yourself the ultimate authority as you pronounce FAIL on all who don't agree."
...I'm trying to keep the thread on topic, which is the President's Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament.
The OP has nothing to do with Afghanistan or drones.
Number23
(24,544 posts)with the same cut and paste drivel that he posts all over this web site, none of which has anything to do with nuclear disarmament. The issue of drones is a very important one, but there is no question this person is just trying his absolute hardest to stir the shit, bless his little heart.
Disagreeing with the Nobel Committee is fine and dandy, but the fact that you accuse Prosense of "trying to pick a fight" and happily ignore the person who is blatantly trying to disrupt this thread is just dumb.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)(11-24) 13:54 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international treaty banning land mines.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly says the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.
More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.
The original link is gone now, but here are some others, including updated from this year:
Obama Follows Bush on Land Mines 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/26/obama-landmine-ban-treaty
2013: Memo to Obama: Stop using land mines and cluster munitions ...
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/14/3178616/memo-to-obama-stop-using-land.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602865
Check out the OP, it's about the President's Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/renditions-continue-under-obama-despite-due-process-concerns/2013/01/01/4e593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html
Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns
By Craig Whitlock, Published: January 1
The three European men with Somali roots were arrested on a murky pretext in August as they passed through the small African country of Djibouti. But the reason soon became clear when they were visited in their jail cells by a succession of American interrogators.
U.S. agents accused the men two of them Swedes, the other a longtime resident of Britain of supporting al-Shabab, an Islamist militia in Somalia that Washington considers a terrorist group. Two months after their arrest, the prisoners were secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in New York, then clandestinely taken into custody by the FBI and flown to the United States to face trial.
The secret arrests and detentions came to light Dec. 21 when the suspects made a brief appearance in a Brooklyn courtroom.
The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Renditioned to the US for trial?
- Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
government wide. - Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
- Says that waterboarding is torture and contrary to Americas traditions
contrary to our ideals.
- No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
- Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2607577
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"A secret legal review on the use of Americas growing arsenal of cyberweapons has concluded that President Obama has the broad power to order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad, according to officials involved in the review.
That decision is among several reached in recent months as the administration moves, in the next few weeks, to approve the nations first rules for how the military can defend, or retaliate, against a major cyberattack. New policies will also govern how the intelligence agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attacks on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code even if there is no declared war.
The rules will be highly classified, just as those governing drone strikes have been closely held. John O. Brennan, Mr. Obamas chief counterterrorism adviser and his nominee to run the Central Intelligence Agency, played a central role in developing the administrations policies regarding both drones and cyberwarfare, the two newest and most politically sensitive weapons in the American arsenal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/broad-powers-seen-for-obama-in-cyberstrikes.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=global-home&
Didn't we damn the Bush doctrine for taking on the power of pre-emptive strikes in the real world? Then shouldn't we damn the Obama administration for doing the same thing in the digital world?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. FAIL.
Obama carrying on bush's policies. Democratic FAIL.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama plan would ease weapons export rules
Source: Washington Post
The Obama administration is crafting a proposal that could make it easier to export firearms and other weapons to certain countries in an effort to boost sales for U.S. companies, increase trade and improve national security, according to senior government officials.
The plan, which is part of President Obamas overhaul of U.S. export rules, is being debated by several agencies and it could be months before a final rule is proposed, according to officials.
At least two federal agencies the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department have expressed concerns that the changes in the export rules could make it easier for drug cartels and terrorists to obtain weapons and make it harder to stop firearms trafficking.
Homeland Security raised its objections in an internal memo, saying that the proposed changes could hurt the ability of its agents to prevent or deter the illegal export/transfer of lethal items such as advanced firearms to criminal groups, terrorist organizations or enemy combatants.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-plan-would-ease-weapons-export-rules/2012/05/02/gIQAfTJhxT_story.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)FAIL. Try to keep up: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2607737
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens" - Glenn Greenwald
Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
The president's partisan lawyers purport to vest him with the most extreme power a political leader can seize
by Glenn Greenwald
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.
Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".
...
What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.
In fact, The Most Transparent Administration Ever has been so fixated on secrecy that they have refused even to disclose the legal memoranda prepared by Obama lawyers setting forth their legal rationale for why the president has this power. During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the (OLC) upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."
But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.
...
Much much more at link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022473840
Want to discuss nuclear disarmament?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Ex-Gitmo Prosecutor: Obama's Drone Surge as Damaging as Bush Torture Program
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/01-5
US Air Force Col. Morris Davis (Ret.), who says: "If we're the country we claim to be, we've got to get back to the values we claim to represent."
Ex-Gitmo Prosecutor: Obama's Drone Surge as Damaging as Bush Torture Program
- Jon Queally, staff writer
Published on Friday, February 1, 2013 by Common Dreams
Retired Air Force Col. Morris "Moe" Davis, once the lead government prosecutor for terrorism suspects at the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, says that the US torture regime under Bush and now the drone assassination program run by the Obama administration have combined to make the world less safe and called both programswhether they could be legally justified or not"immoral."
"We are not the shining city on the hill," Davis told the small crowd gathered at Johnston Community College in North Carolina on Thursday night. "If we're the country we claim to be, we've got to get back to the values we claim to represent. Regardless of whether it's illegal, it's immoral."
~snip~
The group that sponsored the evening's lecture, North Carolina Stop Torture Now, noted that Col. Davis' appearances come on the heels of reports by the Washington Post and European human rights advocates that the Obama administration continues to secretly detain suspected terrorists captured abroad.
Comparing Bush's torture regime to Obama's escalated use of drones to carry out attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere Davis said it was "six of one and half a dozen of another."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Want to discuss nuclear disarmament?
riverbendviewgal
(4,251 posts)Thank you pro sense for bringing out the Obama haters on DU.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama Administration Wont Show Secret Legal Opinions for Targeted Killings to US Senator
By: Kevin Gosztola - FDL
Monday January 14, 2013 3:32 pm
<snip>
Ahead of the confirmation of Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan to the position of CIA director, US Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has sent a letter to Brennan asking him to provide Congress access to secret legal opinions outlining the governments ability to target and kill Americans believed to be involved in terrorism.
Wyden, who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, by law is supposed to provide oversight and have access to classified legal opinions, but, as he shares, the Obama administration has refused to provide him access to a copy of secret legal opinions for targeted killings:
I have asked repeatedly over the past two years to see the secret legal opinions that contain the executive branchs understanding of the Presidents authority to kill American citizens in the course of counterterrorism operations. Senior intelligence officials have said publicly that they have the authority to knowingly use lethal force against Americans in the course of counterterrorism operations and have indicated that there are secret legal opinions issued by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel that explain the basis for this authority. I have asked repeatedly to see these opinions, and I have been provided with some relevant information on the topic, but I have yet to see the opinions themselves
Wyden explained that the decision by the Obama administration to claim intelligence agencies may kill American citizens while at the same time refusing to provide Congress with access to all legal opinions explaining the administrations understanding of the authority is alarming and indefensible.
There are clearly some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against Americans who have taken up arms against the United States, just as President Lincoln had the authority to order Union troops to take military action against Confederate forces during the Civil War. But it is critically important for Congress and the American public to have full knowledge of how the executive branch understands the limits and boundaries of this authority so that Congress and the public can decide whether this authority has been properly defined and whether the Presidents power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations. I have an obligation from my oath of office to review any classified legal opinions that lay out the federal governments official views on this issue, and I will not be satisfied until I have received them. So, please ensure that these opinions are provided to me, along with the other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and our cleared staff, and that we receive written assurances that future legal opinions on this topic will also be provided
Wyden also criticized...
<snip>
Link: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/01/14/obama-administration-wont-show-secret-legal-opinions-for-targeted-killings-to-us-senator/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)refusing to discuss nuclear disarmament?
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-collins-statement-on-committee-access-to-targeted-killing-documents
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2607864
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama and Graham on the same bloody page.
"Becoming the first elected government official to publicly state an estimated number of "innocent people" killed in US drone attacks overseas, Sen. Lindsey Graham told a local crowd in his home state of South Carolina that "We've killed 4,700."
Speaking to a group of Rotarians at a forum in Easley, South Carolina, Graham responded to question about drones by saying, "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda."
His remarks, reported by the local Easley Patch, included a defense of the use of drones despite their propensity to kill innocent bystanders, including women and children.
I didn't want him to have a trial, Graham stated, referring to a US citizen, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen by a missile from a US drone in 2011.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/21-0
You should know that you're doing something wrong when Graham agrees with you. Oh, and we finally got an admission from a government official about the total number of innocents killed, 4,700. What a sad statement that is. I guess Obama didn't want Al-Awlaki, or his son to have a trial either, since he is the one who ordered the attack. Two parties, same blood soaked policy. Yep, that's change you had better believe in, because if you don't. . .
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Wow, even for you this is incredibly, well, delusional..."
...object to the facts about the award? I mean, maybe the Nobel Committee was "delusional," but they're the one's who issued the award.
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
Clearly, you find that upsetting.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Henry was such a peace-loving guy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Yup, and Henry Kissinger and the entire EU were deserving as well..."
...doesn't change the fact that the OP states the facts about the award. They gave Krugman an award for economics.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)9/10
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Freedom is Slavery!
Ignorance is Strength!
We have always been at war with Eurasia! It's DoublePlusGood!
patrice
(47,992 posts)improbability, especially given the limitations upon y/our "information".
You may want others to think everyone who disagrees with your position is big brother, but that's not probable at all.
Some x may be y; even most x may be y, but almost never is all x always y, especially when we're not even sharing our definitions of x and the definition of x in this case is limited to one thing and one thing only, drone programs, when there could be others who are as or more deadly and oppressive in their own right.
You have made a god out of Orwell; of the two, Orwell or Obama, which one is more specifically and concretely aware of what is going on right now?
No matter how right Orwell might (might not) be, idolatry is a slave behavior, which one can choose that if one likes, but it is also okay for others to point out how a loss of freedom often produces outcomes that are the opposite of those contained in slavish rhetoric.
Cha
(295,929 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Glenn Greenwald, "Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition"
The memo claims that the president's assassination power applies to a senior al-Qaida member who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". That is designed to convince citizens to accept this power by leading them to believe it's similar to common and familiar domestic uses of lethal force on US soil: if, for instance, an armed criminal is in the process of robbing a bank or is about to shoot hostages, then the "imminence" of the threat he poses justifies the use of lethal force against him by the police.
But this rhetorical tactic is totally misleading. The memo is authorizing assassinations against citizens in circumstances far beyond this understanding of "imminence". Indeed, the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future". The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
ProSense
(116,464 posts)this OP is causing you so much distress.
Breaking: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2607864
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That being said, it really doesn't bother me. It doesn't really hold much significance. Just look at some of the others who have been awarded the same honor. Pretty mixed bag. Overall I think it hurt him more than helped him. The timing of it was awful. No one I knew thought it was anything more than pathetic at the time. They actually laughed at it and joked about how the rights heads were exploding. These people were very supportive of Obama, yet they saw it for what it was, a play in hopes of steering the commander of the worlds most powerful military in a certain direction.
I am not really sure why you, or others, take something of such insignificance so seriously. (insignificance = peace prize, not the unnecessary bloodshed being perpetrated by the us across the globe)
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Wing nuts think that foundation funding should be more like AEI and The Heritage Foundation than the liberal propaganda that the Ford Foundation patronizes,
etc.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)NAMING THE DEAD: Journalists Exposing Civilian Victims of US Drone Attacks
....
"All we have is the US government saying trust us, these are bad guys we are killing, trust us," says Jennifer Gibson in the video. A staff attorney with human rights group Reprieve, she continues, "We cant start to get to the bottom of who is being killed until we know the names of those who are being killed.
As fights in the US courts and Congress attempt to pry open the internal secrets of the Obama administration's program, it has remained up to independent media outlets and human rights groups to fill in the knowledge gaps by investigating the human and social impact the drone strikes have had on the populations forced to live with the buzz of drones overhead and the fear of missile attacks that could come at any moment.
....
So far, our monitoring of CIA drone strikes has recorded at least 2,537 people reported to have been killed by strikes in Pakistan. But fewer than 20% of those killed have been named. Our new Naming the Dead project aims to identify as many as possible of the remainder, whether civilian or militant.
To start with, we will publish all the names and information we have collected so far. But we want to build on this, by identifying as many of the other victims as possible. Naming the Dead will expand the transparency that the Bureau has already brought to this conflict, a factor campaign groups argue is extremely important.
As part of the campaign to raise fundsof which the new video release is a partthe group plans to use crowd-sourcing methods to maintain and expand their 'Naming the Dead' project. They also hope that people will support their work by visiting their Facebook page, sharing the new interactive graphic based on their work, and contributing financially
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/26-4
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...good information, including the number of strikes, locations and casualties since 2002 in the right column.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2607677
Nothing about nuclear disarmament.
patrice
(47,992 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)how's that "BHO would never ever consider cutting SS you MORANS" thing working out?
in this case, it looks to me like you're sucking hind tit, given he's done little to nothing to bring peace to the world, but a great deal to ensure the continuation of the phony WOT, and all the human misery and hardship that comes with it. Nuclear arms reduction has to do with the means whereby we settle conflicts, not avoiding them or making them worse as he is with his WOT policies. That's the "opposite" of peace as most know, but I can understand why you struggle with that concept.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/02-8
news:
HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523
"Celebrating old news because of the unpalatability of the new"
This is new too, from the neocons
Obama's 'nuclear zero' rhetoric is dangerous
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-nuclear-zero-rhetoric-is-dangerous--and-unrealistic/2013/03/29/917f2036-987b-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html
Still, what's wrong with celebrating an achievement?
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)the furtherance of your leadership role in the ranks of the "Purists" around here who have zero tolerance for any criticisms of BHO, even when they might share praising him mover what he's gotten right.
Nobody's questioning or are even ignorant of his many positive achievements, they are just acutely aware after thousands of posts from you in the vein of the aforementioned, questioning your motives for posting it, especially given the common knowledge nature and "not new" nature of them. This is not unlike your "A rube for voting for Obama!!??" post. Praise isn't wasn't the only goal, it's also an effort at rubbing some noses in it.
Face it, you've achieved the status of "leader" of a group that has sought and earned the ire you're now recieving, and justifiably so imo. I'm guessing those outside of your club see you as the functional equivalent of a Bushbot by this point, which is why so many of the responses are less than supportive or friendly.
well done, and have a good day
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Nobody's questioning or are even ignorant of his many positive achievements, they are just acutely aware after thousands of posts from you in the vein of the aforementioned, questioning your motives for posting it, especially given the common knowledge nature and "not new" nature of them. This is not unlike your "A rube for voting for Obama!!??" post. Praise isn't wasn't the only goal, it's also an effort at rubbing some noses in it."
...you can't even get a title right:
Duped into voting for President Obama?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022594997
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that you'll take whatever out you can (like there's a real substantive diff between rube and dupe in the use of the terms) to dishonestly dodge the substance, overarching point of a post, as well as to have you link to the post under question where that is shown by you repeatedly.
It would appear that those are your only true talents, other than mastery of the "C&P" that any grade schooler could do.
thanks for your cooperation in your self-indictment once again.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"hardly, that was deliberate, not only in an effort to show the readers that you'll take whatever out you can (like there's a real substantive diff between rube and dupe in the use of the terms) to dishonestly dodge the substance, overarching point of a post, as well as to have you link to the post under question where that is shown by you repeatedly.'
...was show that you can't make a point with out being disingenuous, and that your read of the title lacks comprehension. Still, it appears that you're impressing yourself with these responses.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)unlike being a less than an artful dodger -- the only talent you seemingly have beyond the ability to "c&p" quite profusely
that's why the readers are still left wondering here and there, how that "you're an idiot or worse if you think BHO is gonna put any of the social safety nets on the table" campaign is going.
Synonyms for "dupe"
Charlie McCarthy, yokel, Photostat, walking delegate, agent, victim, ancilla, unsophisticate, appliance, twin, babe, trusting soul, backslapper, triplicate, baggage agent, travel agent, befool, trace, betray, tool, bluff, toad, bootlick, ticket agent, brown-nose, target, business agent, take, byword, swindle, cajole, suck, cheat, string along, chicane, stock, child of nature, station agent, circumvent, special agent, clawback, snow, clone, slave, commission agent, servant, conjure, secretary, contrivance, sales agent, counterpart, rook, cozen, reproduction, cringer, representation, deceive, replicate, delude, repetition, device, reduplicate, ditto, real estate agent, double-cross, put something over, dummy, pushover, duplication, puppet, facsimile, plaything, fair game, pigeon, fawner, pawn, federal agent, passenger agent, flatterer, overreach, flunky, outsmart, footlicker, outmaneuver, freight agent, official, game, noble savage, gazingstock, multiply by two, general agent, mug, go-between, model, groveler, mock, gull, minion, handmaiden, mimeo, hectograph, microfilm, hick, mere child, hocus-pocus, mediator, hornswaggle, mealymouth, implement, manifold, infatuate, loan agent, ingenue, lickspittle, instrument, lever, interagent, led captain, intermediate, laughingstock, jackal, lamb, jestingstock, kowtower, joke, juggle, kid, job, lackey, jest, land agent, intermedium, law agent, intermediary, let down, insurance agent, lickspit, innocent, literary agent, ingeminate, lout, infant, mark, humbug, mechanism, hoodwink, medium, hoax, microcopy, helot, midwife, handshaker, mimeograph, handmaid, mislead, gudgeon, mockery, goat, monkey, get around, multigraph, geminate, news agent, gammon, oaf, functionary, organ, forestall, outreach, fool, outwit, flimflam, parliamentary agent, figure of fun, patsy, fed, peon, fall guy, play one false, factor, press agent, dust, purchasing agent, duplicate, put on, dove, quadruplicate, double, redouble, diddle, repeat, derision, replica, defraud, replication, customer agent, reproduce, creature, rip off, courtier, rube, copy, sap, consignee, serf, con, simple soul, commercial agent, snooker, clerk, spaniel, claim agent, stat, chump, steward, child, stooge, cheat on, stultify, catch, sucker, byword of reproach, sycophant, butt, take in, brownie, theatrical agent, bootlicker, timeserver, boob, toady, bilk, toy, beguile, transcribe, bamboozle, trick, baffle, truckler, backscratcher, tufthunter, ass-licker, two-time, apple-polisher, vehicle, amanuensis, victimize, Xerox, yes-man, Federal
ProSense
(116,464 posts)posted that drivel, maybe you can revisit the title of the post, which was a rhetorical question leading off with the verb "duped"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022594997
The curious thing is why the post caused you to panic and become defensive to the point of posting nonsense.
Response to ProSense (Reply #209)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"do you mean as a "rube" generally is, in a "a dupe is easily duped" kinda way?"
...maybe you can revisit the title of the post, which was a rhetorical question leading off with the verb "duped"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022594997
You clearly don't understand the post or what a rhetorical question is, or the difference between a noun and a verb.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)which leaves only more dodging to avoid that bit of panicked nonsense to be added to all the rest.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Comedy Central on acid.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is how Orwellian the propaganda has become.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Kissinger and Obama.
What was the Sinclair Lewis quote about a man's job depending on him believing or not believing something?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The two great Peacemakers. Kissinger and Obama."
...end of his second term, President Obama is likely going to become the first President to end two major wars. Not that this has anything to do with nuclear disarmament.
Kissinger worked for this President:
LBJs X File on Nixons Treason
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101617507
President Obama has ended one war and is in the process of ending the other.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/09/481147/obama-marriage-2/
Pres.Obama urging state lawmakers to legalize gay marriage in Illinois
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/12/obama_urging_state_lawmakers_t.html
The End of the Iraq War: A Timeline
http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)I had the impression there were still more troops in Iraq. Your link to the timeline and some further reading corrected that. Thanks.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)progressoid
(49,827 posts)Why are you focusing on the nukes thing?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Uh, the nuclear weapons part is secondary to "international diplomacy & cooperation between peoples"
...my bad. Should have included this in the OP:
Rachel Maddow- Obama diplomacy returns U.S. to leadership role
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607435#post32
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Posted by Arun Chaudhary
Today the official preliminary results from the historic referendum in Sudan were released. The people of Southern Sudan appear to have voted overwhelmingly in support of independence: total turnout was about 97 percent with almost 99 percent of voters casting their ballots to create the worlds newest nation. West Wing Week was on the ground in Sudan during the week-long referendum, traveling to all parts of the country with the Presidents Special Envoy, General Scott Gration. We went behind the scenes at polling stations from Juba to Khartoum, met some of the international community who helped to ensure the vote was fair and peaceful, and traveled to Darfur to inspect conditions and learn about the commitment of the United States to peace in this region after decades of civil war.
<video>
See a few links below on the President's engagement on the issue:
October 19, 2009:
A Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan
November 12, 2009:
A Public Dialogue on Darfur
September 24, 2010:
President Obama in Ministerial Meeting on Sudan: "The Fate of Millions"
January 6, 2011:
Expectations and Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum"
West Wing Week: "Dispatches from Sudan"
Posted by Arun Chaudhary
Today the official preliminary results from the historic referendum in Sudan were released. The people of Southern Sudan appear to have voted overwhelmingly in support of independence: total turnout was about 97 percent with almost 99 percent of voters casting their ballots to create the worlds newest nation. West Wing Week was on the ground in Sudan during the week-long referendum, traveling to all parts of the country with the Presidents Special Envoy, General Scott Gration. We went behind the scenes at polling stations from Juba to Khartoum, met some of the international community who helped to ensure the vote was fair and peaceful, and traveled to Darfur to inspect conditions and learn about the commitment of the United States to peace in this region after decades of civil war.
<video>
See a few links below on the President's engagement on the issue:
October 19, 2009:
A Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan
November 12, 2009:
A Public Dialogue on Darfur
September 24, 2010:
President Obama in Ministerial Meeting on Sudan: "The Fate of Millions"
January 6, 2011:
Expectations and Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/02/west-wing-week-dispatches-sudan
Sudan: The reality after the split
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/04/201342142043365293.html
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Is there anything that Obama could ever do that you wouldn't find praise worthy????
Even I, who think that Hillary is terrific, would have been shocked if she had been just elected in 2008 and then given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was an embarrassment that Obama received it in 2009 because it was so undeserving. Just because 5 Norwegians in the panel were carried away by the Obama euphoria does not make him any more worthy of the award.
"Is there anything that Obama could ever do that you wouldn't find praise worthy????"
...Hillary 2016! Apparently, she's inevitable.
Are you in?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2013, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)
The other nominees were likable enough.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Up is down, black is white, war is peace... There can be no hope and change without truth.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)funny.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)nothing is capable of piercing your bubble of devotion.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's a fail in that nothing is capable of piercing your bubble of devotion."
...by the responses in this thread, that king of thinking and determination is causing a lot of distress. I mean, look at the numerous off-topic posts loaded with non sequiters and red herrings.
Did you hear that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear disarmament?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)with a silly, reality shunning OP?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What do you expect with a silly, reality shunning OP?"
...I got: "silly, reality shunning" responses that have nothing to do with the OP topic: The Nobel committee awarding the President a prize for his efforts on nuclear disarmament.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)It's a give-me. Kinda like the honorary PhD. Diminished in value.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You don't even have to EARN it anymore. It's a give-me. Kinda like the honorary PhD. Diminished in value. "
...just living up to expectations. Thanks.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)"Yep, that's me with former President George Bush. Would you like to see my Nobel Peace Prize? What? Doesn't everyone one have one?"
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)If he has responded to this, or committed the US to stopping such tests, I missed it. Even so, he did support at least 4 of these tests after winning the Nobel Prize.
IPPNW letter to President Obama on nuclear tests
December 18: IPPNW expresses serious concerns about the continued program of subcritical nuclear tests that have been conducted by the US since it signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996.
Dear President Obama:
As fellow Nobel Peace Laureates who share your desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons and the danger they pose to our common survival, we would like to congratulate you on your election to a second term as President. We encourage you to use the next four years to make rapid and
significant progress toward the global elimination of the only weapons capable of extinguishing life on Earth.
With that goal in mind, we want to express serious concern with the continued program of subcritical nuclear tests that have been conducted by the US since it signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. We
understand that you have received letters from the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from groups of atomic bomb survivors protesting the most recent subcritical test on December 5 the fourth such test since you took office and we join them in urging you to cancel this unnecessary and provocative practice.
While subcritical tests are permitted under compromise language that was meant to facilitate ratification of the CTBT by the Senate
but failed to do so they go against the intent of the
Treaty, which is to ensure that no new nuclear weapons will be designed and that no new capabilities will be developed for weapons that already exist. The nuclear-weapon states and the US in particular have a significant technological edge with regard to computer simulation
of nuclear tests, derived from decades of actual test explosions. This advantage is not lost upon the rest of the world, which sees any such tests, with or without a nuclear chain reaction, as a means to extend and perpetuate the role of nuclear weapons in security policy, and not as a step
toward disarmament.
The message subcritical testing sends to other States is that nuclear weapons are here for the long term and that their designs can be modified and enhanced simply by making use of a loophole in a treaty to which the US says it is otherwise committed. At the very least, this is a demoralizing
message for the large majority of States who have made nuclear disarmament an urgent priority.
For at least a few who may be questioning the wisdom of
remaining non-nuclear in the future, subcritical tests are seen as a hypocritical practice that undermines the arguments for non-proliferation.
While nuclear disarmament will require complex and careful negotiation among many States, you can end future US subcritical tests with the stroke of a pen. We urge you to take this step without delay.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...thanks for that.
Obama to Renew Drive for Cuts in Nuclear Arms
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/politics/obama-to-renew-drive-for-cuts-in-nuclear-arms.html
More from the site you linked to:
When the Nobel Committee awarded President Obama the peace prize in 2009, it was to recognize his aspiration for positive change in his country and the world this treaty is a litmus test for the US President to show that he can deliver a credible global instrument to rein in the irresponsible activities of the international arms trade, said Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International.
http://www.ippnw.org/articles/2013-letter-to-obama-arms-trade-treaty.pdf
Historic International Arms Trade Treaty passed at UN
http://peaceandhealthblog.com/2013/04/02/arms-trade-treaty-passed/
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)what an 'ODSer' is?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I know it's an important thread because unimportant ones "rarely elicit this level" of criticism.
Sid
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)to see how meaningless a 4 year old press release about a prize is, in the face of 4 years of continued foreign policy resulting in violence, the death of countless innocents and very little to show in terms of nuclear disarmament.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Yes, it is important to see how meaningless a 4 year old press release about a prize is, in the face of 4 years of continued foreign policy resulting in violence, the death of countless innocents and very little to show in terms of nuclear disarmament."
..."meaningless," why are you posting information showing that other Nobel Peace Laureates are monitoring the President's actions on the topic?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2608436
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)as you have been requesting of posters throughout this thread, you know, since the deaths of countless innocent people at the hands/machines of a foreign power don't seem to have anything to do with peace in your mind.
If you don't see the difference between a 4 year old press release vs a personally signed letter written just a few months ago *after* seeing 4 yrs of US policy under Obama, I don't know what else to tell ya.
If you don't see how the fact that other Nobel Laureates being critical and concerned with US nuclear policy under Obama is relevant to a discussion about his receipt of a prize about disarmament, well, I still don't know what else to tell ya.
Doesn't really matter, ProSense. I don't argue with you to change your mind. You are a fan of press releases, and I am a fan of studying the results of actual policy (achieved or expected by independent analysis). We will never see eye to eye, but there are hundreds or thousands of other eyes reading this thread and they can decide for themselves whether a 4 year old press release is more important than 4 years of policy outcomes.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Just trying to stay on topic"
...thank you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2608561
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Yeah, the signatories on that letter were rather diplomatic in that opening paragraph. Did you read the rest? Still diplomatic, but much more to the point.
The new UN arms treaty is for conventional weapons. So much for staying on topic.
And a renewed 'drive' for cuts is not the same thing as specific laws with specific reductions and actual real world results.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make by linking to that post.
It seems to me we are at that inevitable point when you lose the argument and start spinning around in circles. Which tends to be the point at which I let you get dizzy all by yourself.
Have fun!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Yeah, the signatories on that letter were rather diplomatic in that opening paragraph. Did you read the rest? Still diplomatic, but much more to the point."
...thanks.
"The new UN arms treaty is for conventional weapons. So much for staying on topic. "
I added it since it was from the site you linked to and referenced the President's Nobel Peace Prize.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2608561
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)the level of Orwellian sickness into which the propaganda machine has descended.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"the level of Orwellian sickness into which the propaganda machine has descended."
.."propaganda" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2608561
angrychair
(8,594 posts)Many that have posted here have valid concerns that are worth discussing. Not here, in their own threads, but worth discussing none the less.
Secondly, off topic, yes drone use should have tighter internal controls. Given that, they are the greatest tool the military has to stem the loss of blood and treasure EVER invented. It's an easy task to count the bodies of the dead but far harder to count the people who are alive because drones exist. The reasons are many but in the end we can't change the past that has lead us to this situation, we are at war. Drones are are valuable tool in that effort. Terrorist leadership and their followers find places of comfort and protection inside boarders of countries we have very poor relationships with that have very little ability or inclination to do anything about it on their own. We can put political and economic pressure on these countries, we have and we do, often to very little effect. Or we can work through back channels, get information and use that information to make targeted, specific strikes on locations in the hopes of removing a combatant from the field. Does it always work, no. Do innocent people get hurt sometimes, yes.
The point is, what are the alternatives? This is a very real enemy, that causes very real harm. Do we arrest them? We do, all the time. That being said, these people are not bank-robbers or purse thieves. These are people who have publicly declared war on the US, but this war is different. There are no uniforms, no flags, no field to take the glory from, this is a war from your worst nightmares. Despite the stereotype, your enemy could look like anybody and be from anywhere. It's a very new world. So, do we just grab some troops and do a land invasion of Pakistan? Iran? Syria? Indonesia?Canada? Wherever they may be hiding? Just invade and rebuild wherever terrorist hide? Because history has taught us that innocent civilians never get killed in a massive land invasion. It doesn't cost that much either. Cheap and easy land evasions. Never easy and never cheap.
So, you may not like it, I don't like it, but we have people that are at war with us and our allies. The reasons suck, in our past we went about things the wrong way. Can't fix that. I would be the first to try to negotiate a peaceful solution, sadly, there does not appear to be a path to a peaceful and equitable solution.
You can't ignore the problem. You cannot allow it to fester. At this point, there is no path to a peaceful resolution. Drones are not perfect. Yes, they need better internal controls and oversight. In the big picture, they save billions of dollars and millions of lives.
If you have a better alternative, I am sure there are people that would listen.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Cognitive freedom serves reality and, no matter how oppressively strident and emotionally attractive ideology becomes, reality is what we NEED.
Please see my post #138 above.
patrice
(47,992 posts)they also know there's a whole boat-load of stuff that they don't know enough about to make that alternative case, BUT the rest of us are just supposed to pretend that none of that matters; pay no attention to WHOEVER (??????) that is behind the curtain . . .
too many 0s for me.
patrice
(47,992 posts)praise.
If there is a human right to life, then death for The Constitution and/or the 2nd Amendment, pro or con, is just as evil as drone deaths.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)by posting a positive OP about Obama.
Usually one must go to FreeRepublic to see so much Obama hatred all in one location.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021171260
The US Is Now Attacking Rescuers That Come To The Aid Of Drone Strike Victims {long read}
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-is-now-attacking-rescuers-that-come-to-the-aid-of-drone-strike-victims-2012-8
***SNIP
He added that "A 'positively identified' combatant who provides medical aid to someone amid fighting does not automatically lose his status as a combatant, and may still be legally killed," but as is true for drone attacks there is, manifestly, no way to know who is showing up at the scene of the initial attack, certainly not with "positive identification" (by official policy, the US targets people in Pakistan and elsewhere for death even without knowing who they are). Even commentators who defended the initial round of shooting by the Apache helicopter by claiming there was evidence that one of the targets was armed typically noted, "the shooting of the rescuers, however, is highly disturbing."
But attacking rescuers (and arguably worse, bombing funerals of America's drone victims) is now a tactic routinely used by the US in Pakistan. In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that "the CIA's drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals." Specifically: "at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims." That initial TBIJ report detailed numerous civilians killed by such follow-up strikes on rescuers, and established precisely the terror effect which the US government has long warned are sown by such attacks:
"Yusufzai, who reported on the attack, says those killed in the follow-up strike 'were trying to pull out the bodies, to help clear the rubble, and take people to hospital.' The impact of drone attacks on rescuers has been to scare people off, he says: 'They've learnt that something will happen. No one wants to go close to these damaged building anymore.'"
Since that first bureau report, there have been numerous other documented cases of the use by the US of this tactic: "On , US drones attacked rescuers in Waziristan in western Pakistan minutes after an initial strike, killing 16 people in total according to the BBC. On 28 May, drones were also reported to have returned to the attack in Khassokhel near Mir Ali." Moreover, "between May 2009 and June 2011, at least 15 attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, ABC News and Al Jazeera."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-is-now-attacking-rescuers-that-come-to-the-aid-of-drone-strike-victims-2012-8#ixzz24BIOMrYh
ProSense
(116,464 posts)throwing up and deal with reality: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607435#post43
You're frantically posting information unrelated to the OP topic.
You're making me laugh.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)in weeks.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)"since yesterday"
Number23
(24,544 posts)to somebody. Somewhere...
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021980443
168 children killed. One hundred and sixty-eight (December 2012)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021980443
168 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since start of campaign
As many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years as the CIA has intensified its secret programme against militants along the Afghan border.
The strikes, which began under President George W Bush but have since accelerated during the presidency of Barack Obama, are hated in Pakistan, where families live in fear of the bright specks that appear to hover in the sky overhead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
And thats just Pakistan.
Thanks Bush and Obama!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thanks Bush and Obama!"
...laughing, puking, combusting over the OP, but you haven't posted a single think relevant to the topic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607435#post43
patrice
(47,992 posts)Please answer.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)
I do understand they gave a reason for it. They have to. But I think it was really a "thank you" to Americans for finally being smart enough to turn away from the republican party and go in a different direction than Dumbya and the GOP.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)The Nobel Peace Prize is only given to those who advocate for nuclear disarmament. The committee considers all other considerations, off topic.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I didn't want to retype so I linked to my post above.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Now you understand the ProSense axiom, stated more clearly be me below"
...don't blame me for your flawed logic.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)FAIL!
I agree, your logic is flawed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It is not my logic. You appear to believe nukes are the only issue and other considerations"
...that's your brain in action. Leave me out of it.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)as the rebuttal.
Often to valid arguments that many of his actions and policies piss all over his alleged commitment to peace and by extension piss all over his peace prize.
How the hell did I manage it from your account?
Pissing all over one's peace prize is nothing new, Kissinger comes to mind; perhaps it is, or has become, a meaningless or "ironic" prize.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I imagine it was me that replied dozens of times FAIL while pasting an article about nukes as the rebuttal. Often to valid arguments that many of his actions and policies piss all over his alleged commitment to peace and by extension piss all over his peace prize. "
...you should revisit the OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022607435
Nothing about drones or Afghanistan. Some people are having trouble dealing with that reality.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I never said you mentioned drones or Afghanistan, no one has, many have pointed out however he has tarnished his efforts in the spirit of the award to an extreme that makes it appear to be either an ironic award or in retrospect a mistake made by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Your argument has been "FAIL nothing but this article about nukes is relevant" or a variation, using an outdated article at that.
Interacting with you is a pointless exercise that feels like talking to a sales brochure extolling the virtues of a timeshare, both have limited pages as it's only response and both are only interested in sugarcoating it's product.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Are you really that obtuse or do you act that way as a convenience? I never said you mentioned drones or Afghanistan, no one has, many have pointed out however he has tarnished his efforts in the spirit of the award to an extreme that makes it appear to be either an ironic award or in retrospect a mistake made by the Norwegian Nobel Committee."
...you are. I mean, I've posted throughout the thread that the prize was for nuclear disarmament, but you keep insisting that posts that are not related to that topic have "tarnished his efforts in the spirit of the award"
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)and policies since then are what have tarnished his efforts in the spirit of the award. One cannot celebrate his peace prize and applaud his efforts in the spirit of the award in the present without addressing actions and policies between then and now that appear to be antithetical to the spirit of the award itself.
I have got to stop trying to interact with a sales brochure, it will never address the holes in the roof and the mold that has covered the walls because it only contains one picture of the place. One that looks beautiful because it was taken before the damage, showing me only a frozen moment in time flattering to the timeshare it's selling, it wouldn't even if it could as it wants to sell the timeshare and does not care if it is misrepresenting it's current condition.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You opened up the debate by celebrating his peace prize - his actions and policies since then are what have tarnished his efforts in the spirit of the award. One cannot celebrate his peace prize and applaud his efforts in the spirit of the award in the present without addressing actions and policies between then and now that appear to be antithetical to the spirit of the award itself. "
...I started a thread celebrating the President's Nobel Prize for his efforts to at nuclear disarmament. As for the rest, what the hell are you talking about? As the OP shows, his efforts related to nuclear disarmament have continued throughout his Presidency.
Do you have any information that he has ended such efforts? If not, you're posting nonsense.
Nobel Committee Member: Nuclear Disarmament Efforts Won Obama the Prize
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/09/nobel-committee-member-nuclear-disarmament-efforts-won-obama-the-prize/
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to Dragonfli (Reply #187)
Post removed
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)seen exhibited by Manson followers or Jonestown residents, or the deliberate shilling of propagandists.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"In all fairness it is hard to say if it is due to being victims of a cultish fanaticism as seen exhibited by Manson followers or Jonestown residents, or the deliberate shilling of propagandists."
...fairness would be a law against stupid.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)like a law against those that take advantage of them via propaganda however.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"That's harsh, I would not arrest cultist for their stupidity, I would like a law against those that take advantage of them via propaganda however."
...good thing there isn't a law against excessive use of the word "cultist" and labeling everything "propaganda."
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)"sanctified" followers and "dishonest spin" publications
"I learned something new today. The Nobel Peace Prize is only given to those who advocate for nuclear disarmament. "
...is misleading you.
Cha
(295,929 posts)and ProSense.
William769
(55,124 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)finally got shown the door from this thread.
I am one of millions who thought that Obama's Nobel Prize was way too premature. Hell, he is widely quoted to have even felt that way! But high-jacking a thread about it with this much frenzied, almost panicked and desperate foolishness, I don't see how that person feels they're doing anything to further their "cause".
patrice
(47,992 posts)to be even more so "policeman to the world" specifically on nuclear issues, which pressure, it appears, has succeeded, to an as yet unknown result. Not much better than 50 : 50, in my guess, which isn't reassuring at all.