Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[reefedjib]

There is a difference between fear and hate. That is why we are losing the war on terror, we have not yet grasped that difference.

This was pointed out very well in the conclusions from the Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon:

"Rand concludes, after studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases. As Rand explains, "[a]gainst most terrorist groups . . . military force is usually too blunt an instrument." Moreover, "[t]he use of substantial U.S. military power against terror groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local population against the government by killing civilians."

"as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy." In the end, Rand concludes that the U.S. should rely much more on local military forces to police their own countries, and that this "means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure

We are winning the war on terror in some places (Iraq) and losing in others (Afghanistan/Pakistan - where they have multiple sanctuaries)

I notice that report has data through 2006. I see no problem with the conclusions of the report - it is classic counterinsurgency rules: use the local populace. This predates Petraeus' entry into Iraq as Commander and the implementation of his counterinsurgency strategy.

 

[reefedjib]

American people wanted to blow **** up because we wanted revenge.

I wanted us to help Iraqis build a democracy. It worked too.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I wanted us to help Iraqis build a democracy. It worked too.

So did they. Until we bombed them with some reaaaaally big bombs in the first shot of our war and killed more innocent than guilty. You should watch the movie Why We Fight. Good movie. Too bad it sat on my movie shelf for years before I watched it.

 

[reefedjib]

So did they. Until we bombed them with some reaaaaally big bombs in the first shot of our war and killed more innocent than guilty. You should watch the movie Why We Fight. Good movie. Too bad it sat on my movie shelf for years before I watched it.

No, those bombs were precision munitions. We didn't kill more innocents than guilty. Now al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups most definitely killed more innocents than guilty as that is their primary battleground - the population.

I'll watch that movie. I just grabbed it on Netflix.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I'll watch that movie. I just grabbed it on Netflix.

The newer one. Not the black and white one.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_E1CpZe2wc"]YouTube - WHY WE FIGHT Excerpts from Iraq War Documentary[/ame]

 

[Goshin]

And in other news, after watching a college football game from his living room couch, Obama has been awarded the Heisman Trophy...

 

[Catawba]

Sure it justifies the deaths. This sort of change does not come easily, which is why we shouldn't do it very often, and we should only do it where it makes geopolitical sense - like Iraq.

Hell of an energy program!

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Is this war resister just spewing propaganda or legitimate reasons on why maybe Obama shouldn't be getting any peace prizes.


[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=030_1255585985]LiveLeak.com - 8.000 US Military deserters[/ame]

 

[reefedjib]

The newer one. Not the black and white one.

Standard stuff. There is connections between private industry and the public sector. So what?

 

[Catawba]

We are winning the war on terror in some places (Iraq)

We are not winning the war against Iraq if it takes our heavily armed full surge contingent of forces there to prop up the puppet government we helped set up. When we are gone it will toppled by the Iraqis. What we have is a successful occupation.

and losing in others (Afghanistan/Pakistan - where they have multiple sanctuaries)

and Somali and Yemen.......

I notice that report has data through 2006. I see no problem with the conclusions of the report - it is classic counterinsurgency rules: use the local populace. This predates Petraeus' entry into Iraq as Commander and the implementation of his counterinsurgency strategy.

The Rand Report to the Pentagon was in 2008, some of the data they researched included "studying 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, that military operations against such groups are among the least effective means of success, achieving the desired effect in only 7% of the cases." That's a 38 year window they researched, and in their 2008 report they stated "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida, and indeed, that "[a]l Qaida's resurgence should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. counterterrorism strategy."


Read more at: Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure

 

[Fiddytree]

That is what Gulf War I addressed.

No it wasn't. This was all post-Gulf War foreign policy debate.....

 

[dirtpoorchris]

I guess now the word is that Obama's buildup in Afghanistan and Iraq and now bigger than Bush's used to be.

 

[reefedjib]

We are not winning the war against Iraq if it takes our heavily armed full surge contingent of forces there to prop up the puppet government we helped set up. When we are gone it will toppled by the Iraqis. What we have is a successful occupation.

We'll just have to see how it turns out wont we?

 

[Catawba]

No it wasn't. This was all post-Gulf War foreign policy debate.....

We bombed them back a century in Gulf War 1. My son was part of that effort. That on top of the ten years of sanctions left them a threat to no one. This was even confirmed by the UN Weapons Inspectors.

We would not have attempted to set up our Middle East military stronghold there if they had the capacity to fight back.

 

[reefedjib]

We bombed them back a century in Gulf War 1. My son was part of that effort. That on top of the ten years of sanctions left them a threat to no one. This was even confirmed by the UN Weapons Inspectors.

He was a threat to the region and that threatened our interests: oil. Additionally, it was a convenient cover for transforming a key geopolitical state into a democracy. This built a political weapon which theatens the other autocracies in the region: Iran. You can see it's impact in the demonstrations and clerical maneuverings earlier this year. Those are a direct result of Bush's invasion.

We would not have attempted to set up our Middle East military stronghold there if they had the capacity to fight back.

BAH!

 

[Catawba]

He was a threat to the region and that threatened our interests: oil. Additionally, it was a convenient cover for transforming a key geopolitical state into a democracy. This built a political weapon which theatens the other autocracies in the region: Iran. You can see it's impact in the demonstrations and clerical maneuverings earlier this year. Those are a direct result of Bush's invasion.BAH!

You are right that oil was our strategic interest there (I reflected that in my sig). After Gulf War 1 and our ten years of sanctions Saddam was no longer a military threat to the region in any way. Since Saudi wanted our bases out of their country, we needed another place to set up shop to make the Middle East safe for big oil.

 

[reefedjib]

You are right that oil was our strategic interest there (I reflected that in my sig). After Gulf War 1 and our ten years of sanctions Saddam was no longer a military threat to the region in any way. Since Saudi wanted our bases out of their country, we needed another place to set up shop to make the Middle East safe for big oil.

Yes, the oil industry needs security. You say it as if it's a bad thing.

But you are missing the transformation element. That's important to building regional security long-term and providing an alternative to autocracies on the one hand and terrorism on the other.

 

[Catawba]

Yes, the oil industry needs security. You say it as if it's a bad thing.


I consider it immoral to trade blood for oil. Why don't we just get off our ass and develop our own energy program. Carter wisely saw that 35 years ago. If we had heeded his warning then we would have no need of the Middle East wars as our energy plan.

But you are missing the transformation element. That's important to building regional security long-term and providing an alternative to autocracies on the one hand and terrorism on the other.

What transformation? You mean transforming Iraq into an occupied country with a puppet government we helped set up and still today requires 150,000 heavily armed troops to prop up?

And there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. They did not get along with Saddam.

 

[reefedjib]

I consider it immoral to trade blood for oil.

Oil is a strategic interest. We are fighting wars to secure it. How is that immoral?

Why don't we just get off our ass and develop our own energy program. Carter wisely saw that 35 years ago. If we had heeded his warning then we would have no need of the Middle East wars as our energy plan.

We would still need it. The world would still need it. We are securing the region for the world, not just ourselves. We only take like 10% of the oil output from the region. We are the guarantor for the region, however.

I agree with you that developing alternative transportation and grid energy sources is very important. It must be cost effective. Use CNG for transportation, of which we have lots domestically. Use clean coal and expand nuclear power for grid energy. Fair?

What transformation? You mean transforming Iraq into an occupied country with a puppet government we helped set up and still today requires 150,000 heavily armed troops to prop up?

I don't see it quite that way. I mean transforming Iraq into a functioning democracy that still requires our assistance: militarily, economically, diplomatically.

And there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. They did not get along with Saddam.

Yes there were. Ansar al Islam was an affiliate. More came in when we invaded and started deconstructing (disbanded Iraqi Army), then reconstructing. We fought them and they lost. This was a huge loss for al Qaeda.

So, now, when am I gonna get a Thank You... I'm feeling lonely.

 

[American]

What transformation? You mean transforming Iraq into an occupied country with a puppet government we helped set up and still today requires 150,000 heavily armed troops to prop up?

And there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. They did not get along with Saddam.

Trying to see how this has relevance to a Nobel Prize. It just isn't there.

 

[reefedjib]

Trying to see how this has relevance to a Nobel Prize. It just isn't there.

Yeah, we got off-topic. So shoot us. :2wave:

I mean 74 pages of Obama wasn't enough?

 

[American]

Watching America : The Meaning of a Nobel

Here's how a Columbian news source sees this.

 

[Catawba]

Oil is a strategic interest. We are fighting wars to secure it. How is that immoral?

Because I think we need to get off our ass and develop an energy policy that does not include sacrificing human lives and the cost associated with war.

Are you seriously asking what is immoral about killing people for oil???

We would still need it. The world would still need it. We are securing the region for the world, not just ourselves. We only take like 10% of the oil output from the region. We are the guarantor for the region, however.

I would not trade a single life for all the oil in the middle east.

I agree with you that developing alternative transportation and grid energy sources is very important. It must be cost effective. Use CNG for transportation, of which we have lots domestically. Use clean coal and expand nuclear power for grid energy. Fair?

We already have the capacity to be energy independent with present day sustainable technologies and building design.

I don't see it quite that way. I mean transforming Iraq into a functioning democracy that still requires our assistance: militarily, economically, diplomatically.

All we have currently is a successful occupation.

Yes there were. Ansar al Islam was an affiliate. More came in when we invaded and started deconstructing (disbanded Iraqi Army), then reconstructing. We fought them and they lost. This was a huge loss for al Qaeda.

According to the Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon, our "war on terror" was a failure and there are more terrorists worldwide than before we started. I hardly call that a victory.

So, now, when am I gonna get a Thank You... I'm feeling lonely.

I gave you a thank you earlier when I thought you were being facetious. Turns out we don't think so much alike.

 

[Scorpion89]

You are right that oil was our strategic interest there (I reflected that in my sig). After Gulf War 1 and our ten years of sanctions Saddam was no longer a military threat to the region in any way. Since Saudi wanted our bases out of their country, we needed another place to set up shop to make the Middle East safe for big oil.

Really so why didn't we just tell the rest of the World to bugger off at the ned of the Gulf War 1 and just march in and take over the Oil Fields and remove Saddam at that time.

Next question you do have actually source that the Saudi Govn and the King wants the US Military to close and leave the Kingdom.

 

[reefedjib]

Oil is a strategic interest. We are fighting wars to secure it. How is that immoral?

Because I think we need to get off our ass and develop an energy policy that does not include sacrificing human lives and the cost associated with war.

Are you seriously asking what is immoral about killing people for oil???

Yes. and Democracy.

I would not trade a single life for all the oil in the middle east.

Hard to exercise our superpower status without a little blood and guts.

We already have the capacity to be energy independent with present day sustainable technologies and building design.

It will take years to bring to the market, but we agree!

I don't see it quite that way. I mean transforming Iraq into a functioning democracy that still requires our assistance: militarily, economically, diplomatically.

All we have currently is a successful occupation.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. The democracy is theirs. They make their own decisions (reconciliation, battle of Basra, funding, deployment, diplomacy with Iran).

According to the Rand Report commissioned by the Pentagon, our "war on terror" was a failure and there are more terrorists worldwide than before we started. I hardly call that a victory.

It merely says that conventional warfighting has little impact. Petraeus' counterinsurgency does.

I gave you a thank you earlier when I thought you were being facetious. Turns out we don't think so much alike.

I saw that and I figured it was because you misinterpreted me. Thank you for not taking it back! I think on this topic we don't see eye to eye but on other topics we probably do.