Did Obama deserve the Nobel Peace prize?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Total and utter crap.

At the end of the day, short of total annihilation of one side, wars only come to an end by some sort of negotiation. That's even the case when it is described as "unconditional surrender".

Since negotiation is inevitable it is better, where possible, to have that negotiation before conflict occurs.

"Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War" - Winston Churchill.
Let's see you call HIM a left wing liberal.

---

Winnie was correct, and so am I.

Sometimes the other side forces the issue, whatever that might be, and I'm quite sure he knew what to do if attacked.

As to your attempt to broaden the meaning of the word "negotiation", compare the "negotiation" constituted in the Treaty of Versailles with those ending WWII, then consider the result of each.

To refuse to see the difference begs intellectual blindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Your belief that you and yours are the only ones capable of seeing and dealing with the threats that face the world is sadly not supported by fact

---

Recount for me please the sterling history of diplomacy and negotiation in the Mideast.

Start with Israel and Palestine - that should be easy for a practiced leftie.

Perhaps you could also blow some air up Neville Chamberlain's legacy for our edification.

If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.

Way too much work, much simpler to just throw some boots on the ground and 'splode some shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.

Way too much work, much simpler to just throw some boots on the ground and 'splode some shit.

---

Diplomacy is prosponing the inevitable enough for time to shuffle the cards.

If I knew what "prosponing" was I might agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.

---

And perhaps democrats could, too, rather than just talk about it.

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

---

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speedo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

---

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.

---

Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.

Especially Nixon - it's just not done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speedo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

---

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.

Especially Nixon - it's just not done.

---

Oh Kev, of course you're allowed to use "historical perspective" but it'd be nice if you used the history of this planet and not the fantasy world so beloved of the right these days.
Elected in 1968, Nixon didn't end the Vietnam war until 1973.

So let's see...
Obama has been in office less than a year and hasn't gotten us out of Iraq/Afghanistan yet.
It took five years for Nixon to get out of Vietnam (although to be fair, he was busy breaking domestic laws for the latter half of that period).

And Nixon is more of a peacemaker than Obama?

Even us hippy-dippy liberals don't take as much LSD as you guys appear to.