[neilkaz]

He no more deserves this prize for what he's done in his short time as president than I deserved it for breaking up a fight on the trading floor once.

[Winstonm]

It is somewhat difficult to image the commander-in-chief of two active wars of aggression being awarded a Peace Prize.....

[Trinidad]

Lobowolf, on Oct 10 2009, 01:19 AM, said:

hotShot, on Oct 9 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

I learned here in the forum, that citizens of the USA pretended to be from Canada when they were in e.g. Europe.
There was another thread about citizens from the USA who felt the need to state publicly that they did not vote GWB.
Could it be that they sensed  a hostile atmosphere?

Does that hostile atmosphere still exist?
And if it is less now, isn't this an achievement?

Willy Brandt got his Nobel Peace Prize for starting a dialog with the eastern European countries in 1971, but it took till 1989 the results of this process lead to a significant step to peace.

Politics is about ideas and ideals and the Nobel Peace Prize is a political prize, so it awards ideas and ideals.

If American citizens were subject to a hostile atmosphere in Europe because of who the President was, perhaps a European leader or two needs to step up and earn himself a peace prize.

I seriously doubt that American citizens were subject to a hostile atmosphere when visiting Europe.

But I am pretty sure that they were asked a lot of questions that they couldn't answer other than by saying "Hey, I didn't vote for the guy". After all, Bush has given the world (including Europe) a lot of problems. Just to mention one: Europeans have died. Most likely they would still be alive if Gore had been elected.

On a much smaller scale, I can foresee a similar "hostile atmosphere" in my future (in The Netherlands). Here the xenophobic party of Geert Wilders is leading in the polls. If he manages to convert those polls into parlement seats at election time, I will be asked some tough questions when I am abroad (and I work in Germany), eventually leaving me with the reply... "I didn't vote for him."

Rik

[mike777]

"After all, Bush has given the world (including Europe) a lot of problems. Just to mention one: Europeans have died. Most likely they would still be alive if Gore had been elected."



ok Now I understand.....after all this time now I understand.....Europe really hates Bush...they think he killed their friends and gave Europe lots of problems.

Just as many Americans think 9/11 is Bush's fault......for whatever reason.....(Bush is stupid...Bush loves war....Bush ignored CIA...etc)

despite all of this America reelected this Bush guy....so now......Bush and America must be idiots.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, and I'm not saying at all that he deserved it since I'm no expert and did not expect that at all, who did deserve it in that case? It would be silly to criiticize him unless you thought someone else deserved it more is all I'm saying.

The nobel price for peace has been exent man times before. No need for someone to deserve it more.

Anyway I am no expert, and I believe that if he got it he deserves it most likelly.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

despite all of this America reelected this Bush guy....so now......Bush and America must be idiots.

I wouldn't use the term "idiots", but yes, essentially that is what many Europeans were feeling. And it certainly wasn't just Bush. And yes, Europeans are feeling that Americans made a very wise decision to go with Obama, rather than for McCain.

I lived in the USA in the 90's. I lived in Europe when 9/11 happened. I understood the way America would react and said that the USA would attack Afghanistan and that (in the American view) it was blatantly obvious to do so. Many European people that I talked to then, didn't understand that at all. When Bush went after Iraq, after Blix and AlBaradei made it clear that there were no WMDs, they were wondering what Bush was doing to the world. Later on, they couldn't believe that a country would reelect the leader that sent them into two wars. You used the word "idiots" for that.

Another thing is that most Americans regard 9/11 as the first strike, the start of it all. And they think that it is obviously so. Some Americans, e.g. Barack Obama, are willing to think about the question: "Why did 9/11 happen? What was it that made part of the world so angry at the USA?" That is an entirely new line of thinking in US international politics. IMO, just this new intent is enough reason to deserve the Nobel peace prize.

A month after I came to the USA, at the start of Clinton's first term (so 8 years before 9/11), one of our secretaries asked me a very good question: "Rik, why does the rest of the world hate us so much? Aren't we nice people?" This is the question that Obama dares to ask too.

My answer then was that the rest of the world didn't hate her, or her colleague who was listening in, but that they hated the US international politics and its excessive use of military violence. They were puzzled. What was I talking about? Could I give an example?

I said that I could give several examples, but I took an easy one:
"A few years ago, the USA (and Europe) had a big political conflict with Libya. Europe tried to talk, but Reagan wanted to kill their leader, Khadaffi. Therefore, he sends the air force to Tripoli to bomb the city to try and kill Khadaffi. Result: Many civilian casualties and silly enough they didn't even manage to kill Khadaffi."

Yes, they remembered that this had happened, but "Khadaffi is a bad guy, right?". And I replied: "In the eyes of Reagan and the Western world, yes. But in the eyes of the people in the Middle East, Reagan was a bad guy." So I added: "How would you have felt if the Lybian leader would have made the exact same decision as your leader did? How would have felt if Khadaffi had sent out his air force to bomb Washington DC in an attempt to kill Reagan, killing many civilians on the side? Would that make you feel angry?"

The reply from these secretaries was: "... err... well... err Would they be able to bomb DC?" (They were too shocked to even think about the question whether they would be angry or about the implicit question whether their president was "even worse" than Khadaffi.)

I told them "No, their air force can't reach the USA." Unfortunately, there was another way to reach the USA.

Rik

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Just as many Americans think 9/11 is Bush's fault......for whatever reason.....(Bush is stupid...Bush loves war....Bush ignored CIA...etc)

That is silly. 9/11 was the fault of those guys who flew the planes and nobody else.

Rik

[Winstonm]

Quote

"...How would have felt if Khadaffi had sent out his air force to bomb Washington DC in an attempt to kill Reagan, killing many civilians on the side? Would that make you feel angry?"

The reply from these secretaries was: "... err... well... err Would they be able to bomb DC?" (They were too shocked to even think about the question whether they would be angry or about the implicit question whether their president was "even worse" than Khadaffi.)

Rik,

I believe you give a good example of misguided American exceptionalism, that in the national psyche always paints the U.S. as wearing white hats (good guys) regardless of the action.

That IMO is the main reason so many polled still believe it is O.K. to torture in certain circumstances - because the U.S. does it for the "right" reasons.

[andrei]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

My answer then was that the rest of the world didn't hate her, or her colleague who was listening in, but that they hated the US international politics and its excessive use of military violence.

I have seen my country being crushed by 45 years of russian communism. 20 years after and there still is a very long way to go.

This and this reason alone and it is mind-boggling the "hate" of western europeans towards US. I guess they hated the excessive use of military violence in the WWII also.

Also, don't you find it strange that the attitude of eastern europeans towards US, even though they were betrayed by Roosevelt at Yalta, is it much different than the attitude of western europeans?

[Jlall]

The nobel prizes for literature and peace have long been a political joke, so nothing new here.

[Al_U_Card]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Just as many Americans think 9/11 is Bush's fault......for whatever reason.....(Bush is stupid...Bush loves war....Bush ignored CIA...etc)

That is silly. 9/11 was the fault of those guys who flew the planes and nobody else.

Rik

A toe-tapping good-time

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Chain of command.....and control....some things never change....

[kenberg]

Rik,

If one wishes to blame the United States for the violence of the twentieth century it helps to have a very selective memory. Except for trying to work out how we can all do better, this "Look what the US did, no, look what Europe did, etc" doesn't play well. But if we are going to go that way, I point out that it was not the US that colonized Africa and then pulled out leaving chaos behind, it was not the US that carved up the middle east into a bunch of irrational borders after the first world war, it was not the US that imposed impossible reparations on Germany after the first world war, and the creation of Israel after the second world war was not because of all of the Jews that were gassed in the United States. That's for starters. Mistakes were made, as the expression goes. There are reasons why my father, and many others, left Europe behind.

Moving forward, remembering but not obsessing with the past, is the way to go as far as i am concerned. I don't much believe in all tis apologizing stuff.


Ken

[PassedOut]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

despite all of this America reelected this Bush guy....so now......Bush and America must be idiots.

I wouldn't use the term "idiots", but yes, essentially that is what many Europeans were feeling. And it certainly wasn't just Bush. And yes, Europeans are feeling that Americans made a very wise decision to go with Obama, rather than for McCain.

I lived in the USA in the 90's. I lived in Europe when 9/11 happened. I understood the way America would react and said that the USA would attack Afghanistan and that (in the American view) it was blatantly obvious to do so. Many European people that I talked to then, didn't understand that at all. When Bush went after Iraq, after Blix and AlBaradei made it clear that there were no WMDs, they were wondering what Bush was doing to the world. Later on, they couldn't believe that a country would reelect the leader that sent them into two wars. You used the word "idiots" for that.

Another thing is that most Americans regard 9/11 as the first strike, the start of it all. And they think that it is obviously so. Some Americans, e.g. Barack Obama, are willing to think about the question: "Why did 9/11 happen? What was it that made part of the world so angry at the USA?" That is an entirely new line of thinking in US international politics. IMO, just this new intent is enough reason to deserve the Nobel peace prize.

I'm one of those who consider it "blatantly obvious" for the US to respond militarily against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

As someone who loves to travel internationally, though, I've had the "opportunity" to explain US actions to folks truly bewildered that we could act in ways so obviously wrong on so many levels. And I do know people who have pretended to be from Canada, not out of a fear of hostility, but to avoid having to explain the indefensible.

And it's not easy explaining the indefensible, partly because so many factors are involved and partly because I can't share the mindset of the people who approve of US military aggression and of US support for oppressive governments.

I do know that many people in the US simply do not understand how US actions look to others. Many people travel only within the borders of the US, and many of those who travel abroad do so only in packaged tours with other Americans. And there is a strong anti-intellectual prejudice here, too, buttressed by countless TV shows and commercials (including political commercials) that equate knowledge and thoughtfulness with impracticality.

What's more, there is strong tendency to look for a short-term fix instead of taking the longer view. Some of that, in my opinion, is a spillover from our corporate culture that looks to make the next quarter's numbers at the expense of the long-term health of a company. G. W. Bush was proud of his MBA.

I have been asked how Bush could have gotten a single vote after his performance over the first four years. There is no single answer, and the voters here are not all "idiots." Selective ignorance would be a better explanation.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

Rik,

If one wishes to blame the United States for the violence of the twentieth century it helps to have a very selective memory. Except for trying to work out how we can all do better, this "Look what the US did, no, look what Europe did, etc" doesn't play well. But if we are going to go that way, I point out that it was not the US that colonized Africa and then pulled out leaving chaos behind, it was not the US that carved up the middle east into a bunch of irrational borders after the first world war, it was not the US that imposed impossible reparations on Germany after the first world war, and the creation of Israel after the second world war was not because of all of the Jews that were gassed in the United States. That's for starters. Mistakes were made, as the expression goes. There are reasons why my father, and many others, left Europe behind.

Moving forward, remembering but not obsessing with the past, is the way to go as far as i am concerned. I don't much believe in all tis apologizing stuff.


Ken

The European countries all had different roles in the violence of the twentieth century (and before). We need to do more than remember what happened: we need to draw the appropriate lessons.

The US will not always be the dominant military power in the world. We absolutely need to consider what it means to be a responsible member of the world community. Listening respectfully to the considered views of others is a part of that. So is learning from their, and our, mistakes.

[Trinidad]

PassedOut, on Oct 10 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

I lived in the USA in the 90's. I lived in Europe when 9/11 happened. I understood the way America would react and said that the USA would attack Afghanistan and that (in the American view) it was blatantly obvious to do so. Many European people that I talked to then, didn't understand that at all.

I'm one of those who consider it "blatantly obvious" for the US to respond militarily against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I wrote "Afghanistan", you wrote "those responsible for the 9/11 attacks". That is a very big difference.

Rik

[kenberg]

Let's take Afghanistan. What, really, does it mean to work internationally here? Obama says the was is a war of necessity. Suppose Europeans think otherwise. What would an international response consist of? Europe sending troops in an endeavor they think foolish? The United States abandoning an effort we regard as critical? A year ago I could see some point in the latter course. Pakistan and Afghanistan are a good deal closer to France and Belgium than they are to the US and if Europe sees no problem with the Taliban getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes, we should relax too. But of course Obama saw it otherwise and so here we are.

[mike777]

kenberg, on Oct 10 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Let's take Afghanistan. What, really, does it mean to work internationally here? Obama says the was is a war of necessity. Suppose Europeans think otherwise. What would an international response consist of? Europe sending troops in an endeavor they think foolish? The United States abandoning an effort we regard as critical?  A year ago I could see some point in the latter course. Pakistan and Afghanistan are a good deal closer to France and Belgium than they are to the US and if Europe sees no problem with the Taliban getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes, we should relax too. But of course Obama saw it otherwise and so here we are.

Yes, and it is closer to China and Russia as well as Europe.

These countries have well over a billion people in their populations.


It may be best to let them take the lead and listen to them rather than bomb Pakistan with flying robots made in the USA.


"After all, Bush has given the world (including Europe) a lot of problems. Just to mention one: Europeans have died. Most likely they would still be alive if Gore had been elected."

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm one of those who consider it "blatantly obvious" for the US to respond militarily against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I appreciate the outrage and anger - I felt it, too. I can understand the desire for instant revenge - I felt it, too. But these feelings didn't last, and I came to realize that the 911 attack was not an act of war - 19 mostly Saudi nationals with box cutters who served no country's army, navy, air force, or marines, and who had zero defense budget cannot possibly start a war - no, it was an organized criminal offense, a federal crime called terrorism.

Military action is a poor response to a crime - and self-defeating for the most part.

Rand Corporation published a report on effectively fighting terrorism:

Quote

As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most [terrorist groups studied] ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

Quote

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases. The authors found that militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized. But against most terrorist groups, military force was usually too blunt an instrument.

Quoting from the last quote:

Quote

The authors found that militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized

Large, well armed, and well organized ....kind of like an opposing army?

[mike777]

btw did anyone notice that the Main Pakistan Army headquarters, their Pentagon, was attacked last night?

Perhaps we should stop getting Europeans killed and being blamed for it and listen to Europe, china and Russia.

"After all, Bush has given the world (including Europe) a lot of problems. Just to mention one: Europeans have died. Most likely they would still be alive if Gore had been elected."

[mike777]

"The European countries all had different roles in the violence of the twentieth century (and before). We need to do more than remember what happened: we need to draw the appropriate lessons.

The US will not always be the dominant military power in the world. We absolutely need to consider what it means to be a responsible member of the world community. Listening respectfully to the considered views of others is a part of that. So is learning from their, and our, mistakes."



So what do they say, what are the lessons you seem to feel we did not learn or listen too?

I mean what do they want to do in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the war is 9 years old...what do they say?