• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

US Airstrikes Hit a Doctors Without Borders Hospital

Wrangor, how does anything you've posted counter the point made above that Obama got the award for the potential to counter Bush's foreign policy? It doesn't take more than 12 days to have potential.
 
Yeah, I don't get what Wrangor point is - Obama very clearly got the award because the rest of the world absolutely despised GWB and his neocon foreign policy, and Obama was a brilliant speaker who repudiated that viewpoint.

He effectively won the prize in July 2008, when he campaigned for the US presidency by going to Europe (seriously, during the middle of the campaign he flew to Europe - he was a goddamn global rockstar at that point). He delivered a tremendous speech in Berlin in particular, and the European press were absolutely fawning over him. Read this Guardian coverage of his speech in Berlin, he was adored globally not because he was black but because people worldwide thought he represented a complete change of heart in the United States http://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/jul/24/barackobama.uselections2008

Taking what he calls his "improbable journey" to the heart of Europe, Barack Obama succeeded in closing down one of Berlin's main thoroughfares tonight, luring the city's young in their tens of thousands to stand in the evening sunshine and hear him spin his dreams of hope, not for America this time, but for the whole world.
Click to expand...

But the loudest applause came when Obama, however subtly, offered himself as the coming antidote to all that Germans, Europeans, indeed most non-Americans, have disliked about the Bush era.

After listing a series of global problems, from genocide in Darfur to loose nukes, he declared: "No one nation, no matter how large or how powerful, can defeat such challenges alone." It was a promise to end the unilateralism of the early Bush years, and the crowd could not contain their delight.
Click to expand...

He didn't spell out that he would reverse much of the course of the last eight years, but that was only because he didn't have to.

"This is an anti-Bush rally," said one man, an employee of the German government, reluctant to reveal his name because of his job.
Click to expand...
_44861047_crowd466_grab.jpg
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
1. Why are we still doing airstrikes in Afghanistan? There is nobody there that is a threat to us

2. Why is the U.S. military putting out there that Afghan forces requested the strike there as if that is a defense? You still have the obligation to do some due diligence on where you're dropping your bombs
Click to expand...

Turns out I was onto something...

"The American commander in Afghanistan now believes that United States troops did not follow their own rules in calling in the airstrike that decimated a Doctors Without Borders hospital when no American and Afghan troops were in extreme danger..."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/w...rs-without-borders-airstrike-kunduz.html?_r=0
 
vadimivich said:
Yeah, I don't get what Wrangor point is - Obama very clearly got the award because the rest of the world absolutely despised GWB and his neocon foreign policy, and Obama was a brilliant speaker who repudiated that viewpoint.

He effectively won the prize in July 2008, when he campaigned for the US presidency by going to Europe (seriously, during the middle of the campaign he flew to Europe - he was a goddamn global rockstar at that point). He delivered a tremendous speech in Berlin in particular, and the European press were absolutely fawning over him. Read this Guardian coverage of his speech in Berlin, he was adored globally not because he was black but because people worldwide thought he represented a complete change of heart in the United States http://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/jul/24/barackobama.uselections2008






_44861047_crowd466_grab.jpg
Click to expand...

So he won a Nobel Peace Prize because he duped a bunch of Euros? When does David Hasselhoff get his?
 
Deacon923 said:
Um, you're aware that the Nobel prize is awarded by... a bunch of Euros who now acknowledge they were duped? Right? Did you think the NAACP gave it out?
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the Euros, since they don't vote that often in US elections. Much duping to be had in 2008. The fun part is we knew that you dupes were being duped at the time you were being duped.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It wasn't just the Euros, since they don't vote that often in US elections. Much duping to be had in 2008. The fun part is we knew that you dupes were being duped at the time you were being duped.
Click to expand...

I'm good with the social changes towards equality this country has taken since January 2009.


Obama's foreign policy has been more disappointing than a feeling of pride, however. I must admit to that.
 
deacvision7 said:
I'm good with the social changes towards equality this country has taken since January 2009.


Obama's foreign policy has been more disappointing than a feeling of pride, however. I must admit to that.
Click to expand...

What has disappointed you compared to foreign policy in December 2008?
 
PhDeac said:
What has disappointed you compared to foreign policy in December 2008?
Click to expand...

Just like I won't compare the results of Wake basketball to the NAME REDACTED era, I won't compare foreign policy to the Bush 2 era.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So he won a Nobel Peace Prize because he duped a bunch of Euros?
Click to expand...

Which is why his last trip to Berlin didn't have anything close to that same turnout. He won the Nobel Prize because the rest of the world thought he represented a dramatic change in US attitude and foreign policy ... and that never really came about. We're still drone striking, air striking, paratrooper dropping, regime changing, spying and general bullying just like we were before. Obama isn't much removed from being a neocon, at least in what he's done.

And in complete agreement with dv7 - the fact that Obama hasn't actually lived up that promise is BY FAR the most disappointing thing about his presidency.
 
Deacon923 said:
was this thing about the nobel all the rage in some far-right wing circles that Wrangor was reading in 2008? Cause I think I remember that time pretty clearly and I don't think I ever heard that angle before two days ago. Like, ever, from anyone. The award was rightly and roundly panned because it was for potential (mostly unfulfilled) not accomplishments. That potential was supposedly to stop the US from being a unilateral invader, torturer, and imprisoner and start being a force for peace. It's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Nobel First American To Do Something Prize. WTF.

Out of curiosity, I googled "did Obama win the nobel peace prize because he is black?" All the hits on the first page were from the comments section of MSM sites (you can guess how that went) and some ... questionable websites.
Click to expand...

This thread is actually the first time I have given this topic any thought. I really don't care all that much either way. As I have said before, I think Obama handled the scenario about as well as anyone could ever expect. I guess I don't understand why people are so reticent to admit that a large portion of Obama's global tidalwave in 2008 was because he was African American. I am not saying that as a negative, in fact just the opposite. It was an amazing time. Being black helped him in a massive way in the election, and even more so globally. He was the anti-bush, in every way, and being of a different race was a definite part of that. Obama was the culmination of MLK's struggles in a lot of peoples minds. I don't think there is much of an argument to be had here as we are just arguing subjective interpretations of the event. I have my opinion, you have yours. We are debating internal motivations for an event that both of us agree was undeserved, but well handled by Obama. Kind of silly to argue any more. I'll bow out. I have made my point.
 
As if Africans and African-Americans are some beloved race of people around the world.
 
avalon said:
At the risk of derailing the Nobel prize thread, this sounds really bad.
Click to expand...

Ouch. I am glad that we are taking responsibility for the mistake. That is certainly the first step in making sure it doesn't happen again. This will not help our presence in the region. With the first Democratic Debate less than a week away it will be interesting to see who is able to win this topic. Republican debate isn't for another 3 weeks, so the issue may have lost some steam by then, but I have to imagine Rand Paul is just begging to get in front of the country right now and make his case. John Kasich seems to be the only other Republican that could make a good argument against less involvement as he is the only republican that is attuned to using cooperative forces with other nations. Other Pubs are much more hawkish.

I don't know Sanders stance on the involvement, but I have to assume that he is less of a Hawk than Hillary based on his other stances. Could be a nice angle of attack for him next week. Hillary will certainly try to distance herself as far from this administration as possible on this issue.
 
What do you think Rand Paul or the other politicians are going to say? I find it hard to believe any are going to want to seem like they are attacking the military. (Maybe Sanders.)
 
Wrangor said:
Ouch. I am glad that we are taking responsibility for the mistake. That is certainly the first step in making sure it doesn't happen again. This will not help our presence in the region. With the first Democratic Debate less than a week away it will be interesting to see who is able to win this topic. Republican debate isn't for another 3 weeks, so the issue may have lost some steam by then, but I have to imagine Rand Paul is just begging to get in front of the country right now and make his case. John Kasich seems to be the only other Republican that could make a good argument against less involvement as he is the only republican that is attuned to using cooperative forces with other nations. Other Pubs are much more hawkish.

I don't know Sanders stance on the involvement, but I have to assume that he is less of a Hawk than Hillary based on his other stances. Could be a nice angle of attack for him next week. Hillary will certainly try to distance herself as far from this administration as possible on this issue.**
Click to expand...

**Former Secretary of State Clinton
 
I think, unless your position is completely anti-war, there's not much you can say about this that doesn't sound naive/hypocritical. If you are willing to state that military action is needed, then you have to accept that stuff like this is going to happen from time to time. Everyone, everwhere messes up. It just happens that when the military messes up, people usually die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top