Feel-Good Intentions Never Work Out as Intended
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
Supporting the causes we believe are important is hardly unique to liberal ideology, and that's what the Nobel Commission was doing, IMO. They believe in attempting to make peace, rather than war, whenever humanly possible. They believed that Obama represented the best chance for peace in America's foreign relations, and they believed that recognizing that would strengthen his chances of prevailing over those who are ever ready to commit our resources to yet another battle.
So why didn't it work out as they hoped? It's not like Obama declared war on another country...
So why didn't it work out as they hoped? It's not like Obama declared war on another country...
Yes, they went with the usual liberal plan. A bunch of idiocy "believed" and "hoped" that common sense and the absence of the liberal defect would clearly be known to be foolishness. They were fooled. Rather than awarding a prize for hoped for pie in the sky they should have found actual positive results somewhere, verifiable, and rewarded that.
I find it amusing the Nobel Peace Prize committee thinks it can influence matters of peace or war. They flatter themselves with such folly.
You think another invasion of a Middle Eastern country would have been a better approach?
I don't claim to know a lot [or much at all] about it, but it seems the people he has killed [by proxy] are terrorists - or at least, give a reasonable appearance of being that. If killing must be done, I prefer Obama's way to sending our troops somewhere to fight and die.
I believe that when we can stop considering our young people as 'assets' to risk in armed conflict, we will have taken a big step forward in civilization.
Pretty sure their statement "It didn't work out as we hoped" acknowledges their mistake. I'm not seeing flattery or folly in that, myself. A Nobel Peace Prize is a really, really, truly big deal, and it absolutely ought to have influence. The folly was in assuming that Obama could get cooperation from his adversaries, [Congress & the Senate] towards a mutually beneficial outcome.
A Nobel Peace Prize is a really, really, truly big deal only to the ego of its recipient.
I think it's a bit more than that. An official recognition that peace is a goal worth the effort required. As opposed to, say, winning a football game.....In the larger scheme, which will be more useful to humanity?
The NFL generates billions of dollars and thousands of jobs in the American economy. College football is no slacker, either. Both give employment prospects to overgrown men prone to outbursts of sudden physical violence. Humanity served.
I believe an honest appraisal of cost/benefits would show the NFL as a net loser, but the point about giving overgrown men prone to outbursts of sudden physical violence employment prospects was something I've never considered, lol. Now that I have, I think it'd be much wiser to provide them employment that requires them to control their propensity for violence, and doesn't require them to risk lifelong brain damage from head injuries.
PS Most of the jobs generated suck. "Jobs" aren't much help when they don't provide anything beyond a minimum wage.
The flattery and folly was hoping it would work out as they hoped, thinking that by giving someone the Peace Prize before it was earned would somehow influence the future of peace or way.
Nice attempt at deflecting attention to those big bad meanies in Congress who won't let Obama do whatever he wants. Seriously. Really nice! You just slipped that right in there like it was a oyster sliding down the throat. Lundestad says right there that the decision was made so that it would "strengthen Obama" to pursue nuclear disarmament. As a presidential candidate, Senator Obama said he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Obama said, "It's time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we'll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."
The Nobel Committee gave him the award in the hopes that he would make good on that sentiment, and that other nuclear nations would listen to Obama and disarm themselves of nuclear weapons. It had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with his adversaries in Congress.
They generally don't hand out the Lombardi Trophy during August in the hopes that it will strengthen the recipient to win the Super Bowl. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded since 1901 according to Alfred Nobel's wishes, except in recent years when the award has become politicized (something that has actually opened up several criminal investigations on the matter in Sweden and has caused committee members to resign). The criteria for the award is give it to a recipient who has "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" (not to be confused with the US Congress, peace congresses are international peace conferences to settle disputes). It's a past-tense award, not a hopeful future-tense award.
If Obama's biggest obstacle to attaining nuclear disarmament [at least in Iran] isn't Congress, WTH is? The European nations are on board, but the usual suspects are threatening mayhem if the deal goes through.
In hindsight, the Nobel Committee was misguided, but I think their goal was admirable: proactive. And here's a thought: maybe it actually did help convince Europe to help the US contain nukes in Iran. Europe takes the Nobel a lot more seriously than most Americans, so it could be a factor.
In hindsight, the Nobel Committee was misguided, but I think their goal was admirable: proactive. And here's a thought: maybe it actually did help convince Europe to help the US contain nukes in Iran. Europe takes the Nobel a lot more seriously than most Americans, so it could be a factor.
"Why bother learning when ignorance is instantaneous?"
Not even including the local business that provide jobs generated by the NFL and the vendors and suppliers who provide the goods for those business, the 32 NFL teams by themselves employ on average 3,739 people each, including players, concession workers and office staff. About 1,800 of those jobs, about half, is considered to be fiull-time employment. These jobs include:
Football Operations
Coaching Staff
Administration
Communications
Community Relations
Council
Equipment and Security
Facilities
Finance
Video
Information Technology
Marketing
Medical Service and Training
Player Development
Player Personnel and Scouting
Ticket Office
Stadium Operations
The average salary for concessions workers in the NFL is between $19 an hour and $26 an hour, depending on the position. Parking lot attendants is $17 an hour. True enough, the game-day jobs are part-time and you're not going to raise a family working 10 weekends a year, but it's decent-paying supplemental income.
Iran's got nothing to do with it, as they are not a nuclear nation. WTH it is is the nuclear nations that don't want to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons.
Of course the European nations are on board (well, except for France). Pretty much every non-nuclear country is on board. The "usual suspects" as you call them are China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, and North Korea.
It's not supposed to be proactive or admirable, which is why even the European Union, who was themselves a politically motivated recipient of the award, joined in several of the Scandinavian lawsuits against the Nobel Committee.
It didn't. Europe didn't need convincing about Iran, or about any other nation within missile range of Europe.
Yes they do, as they were the first ones to file lawsuits against the Nobel Committee for politicizing the award when it was given to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (North Vietnam) for the 1973 Paris Agreement that was to bring about the cease-fire and withdrawal of US troops. Two Nobel committee members resigned over it, 5 European nations filed suit, and Le Duc Tho refused to accept the prize, on the grounds that peace had not actually been achieved in Vietnam and the award was premature and political. Europe (and other nations) have been outraged over several other Peace Prize awards, including the ones given to Gorbachev, Yitzak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, Obama, and the European Union itself.
They weren't much thrilled when Jimmy Carter got one, either, since like the others he really didn't meet the criteria. He was given the award, literally, for feel-good intentions. He was given the award for "his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," none of which was actually successful. Oh, well, at least he tried.
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's give out the Cy Young, the Heisman, the Lombardi, the Borg-Warner, the Wally, etc. now, before any competitions. We can just randomly pick various players and competitors and hope for the best. Who cares if we pick the worst possible competitor out of the world of possibilities. We had "hope" and that's the new big thing isn't it, "hope" rather than substance.
What are you talking about? All I did was answer your question. I never said a word about kneading anyone or using young people for anything.