Hmmm, true. I wasn't actually expecting a valid explaination; have an Escapist cookie!stinkychops said:In two senses.Doug said:.........????stinkychops said:If no-one fought, then Hitler wouldn't be a threat because he wouldn't have invaded or caused the death of anyone.
I have to say 'huh?' to this, and it makes zero sense. If no-one fight INCLUDING Hitler, then I can see is possiblity working. But even then, there'd probably be alot of dead or exspelt jews regardless.
The appeasement policy, whereby the western democracies continuously gave into Hitler only wetted his desire for conquest, and in the case of the USSR, they were defending themselves (the USSR that is) from extermination, given the Germans were wiping out whole villages, towns, and even cities in their wake.
Hitler rose to power due to the poverty and hatred caused by WW1.
If no-one fought or commited violence, Hitler isn't a threat because he can't do shit.
Totally right, don't know how you can think not-fighting back Hitler was a clever idea.Doug said:.........????stinkychops said:If no-one fought, then Hitler wouldn't be a threat because he wouldn't have invaded or caused the death of anyone.
I have to say 'huh?' to this, and it makes zero sense. If no-one fight INCLUDING Hitler, then I can see is possiblity working. But even then, there'd probably be alot of dead or exspelt jews regardless.
The appeasement policy, whereby the western democracies continuously gave into Hitler only wetted his desire for conquest, and in the case of the USSR, they were defending themselves (the USSR that is) from extermination, given the Germans were wiping out whole villages, towns, and even cities in their wake.
Did you read what I said?Doug said:Snip.
I think you misunderstand me slightly. I don't mean to say American politicians are badly behaved, more that the level of discourse on politics by some politicians, the media and amongst the public is ferocious and bitter in a way that is rare in other Western countries. The British Labour and Tory parties and their supporters, for instance, do not generally compare each other to Hitler, Stalin, or call each other traitors. They're certainly quite rowdy in parliament though.Anacortian said:Possibly. I would, however, note that both sides engage in this. If Bush got a Nobel Peace Prize, the left would have the same cow. For the record, I think neither President is deserving of this particular honor. I would also state that the argument against Obama's award have been mostly pointing out his lack of required merit; I see very little "but he's a socialist" being said.Agema said:It's nice to see the US right wingers blowing a huge gasket over this as usual. It's a sad and embarrassing display of partisan bile and vitriol.
It goes to a president they don't like, and it's the usual smears, rage and vindictiveness that characterises US politics. Let's face it, if it had gone to a neutral American, those same people would all be sitting here saying how it reflects on how great the USA is.
As to your uninformed opinion that such things characterize US politics, I can only assume you have never seen politics elsewhere. The British House of Commons is vile on a level that would scare an American. Australia publishes political cartoons that no US paper would ever consider (they're really funny, too.) South Korean politicians regularly get into fights on the legislative floor. Canadian politic remind me a little of Jerry Springer. My point is that such rage is pandemic. Man, across the board, is regularly tempted to anger over politic; I would say that is because politics is worth being angry about.
READkotorfan04 said:I have to believe this was just a brilliant plan to give Obama's administration some steam after being Obama started to fall in the popularity polls, of course he fell in the polls because he didn't do anything, so I suppose now everyone who underachieves can get a major award. Christ, at least Bush did stuff, he didn't do good stuff but he got shit done. (Yes I am a dem, and I really hate typing that bit of praise for Bush.)
So he won it, because he's a good motivational speaker???yeah_so_no said:Uhh...you DO realize it's not America who gives out the Nobel Peace Prize, right? It's the Norwegian Nobel Committee, with the committee for the Peace Prize elected by the Norwegian Parliament.
And for everyone wondering why they chose him [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace], to quote the committee:
"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," the committee said. "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."
The committee said it 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," the committee said.
No. They've only just started awarding them for this year this week. Three American women won for Chemistry, and German woman won for Literature yesterday, and they just announced the Peace prize today.
I KNEW it seemed kinda familiar!dragonsatemymarbles said:Are you sure you're not thinking of Zaphod Beeblebrox?grimsprice said:Presidents don't have power, they're in office to draw attention away from it.
Well... he's big in Japan.Doug said:Obama's popular in Norway?Tsaba said:and this is why awards such as these don't mean a thing anymore, it's just a popularity contest now.