Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh no here we go again. You believe what you want to though Ray.

Posted by rbmorgan (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. I think the prize was a huge surprize to everyone, including President Obama. I believe the Nobel committee is reacting to Obama's frequent gestures to all the countries of the world to try and find common ground with which a dialog can be started. His statement about reaching out with an open mind and not a clinched fist was one of the things I think the committee was reacting to. I think it is great and that gesture alone is worthy of recognition.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this is what is meant by trying to find a way out of the horrors he inherited?

Regarding Afghanistan:

“We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.............So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defence of our people.”

Sounds to me like he claimed to be every bit as committed to "the horrors" as Bush was.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He should have never "inherited" anything, the Afghan war should have been over, or never even fought, instead we went were duped into going into Iraq.

I'll state what I have always said on this, an American won this award, donated the 1.4 million prize money to charity, what is they say? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth? Hell I'd say the same thing if it was Bush, Clinton, etc. There is no downside for us, even though there are those that would like there to be.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes:
Don't you get it? Pres. Bush and VP Cheney are the first administration to EVER get us into a war, EVER, and Pres. Obama is the first president EVER to inherit such "horrors."
EVER!!!!!
No wonder so many Americans are traumatized.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the way the POTUS ordered those three kids from Somalia heads popped open. That was a true gesture of peace. At that point, I thought he might have a shot at world peace, but he hasn't done much lately to prove his worth.
I expect the POTUS to get high marks from the Russians for removing the defensive missiles from Poland, but I bet the Poles poles have lowered a bit.
If he keeps on the good side of the Norwegians he might win again next year. The standard has been set so low for him that I will be disappointed if he doesn’t have repeat wins at this so called prize.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Don't you get it? Pres. Bush and VP Cheney are the first administration to EVER get us into a war, EVER, and Pres. Obama is the first president EVER to inherit such "horrors."
EVER!!!!!
No wonder so many Americans are traumatized."

No president has inherited a bigger "mess" since the 70's. GOP or Dem whether it was Obama or McCain I would have sympathy for either on the load they have carry. Horror is an accurate depiction of the job description.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I am profoundly moved and touched by the signal honor shown me through your body in conferring upon me the Nobel Peace Prize. There is no gift I could appreciate more and I wish it were in my power fully to express my gratitude. I thank you for it, and I thank you on behalf of the United States; for what I did, I was able to accomplish only as the representative of the nation of which, for the time being, I am president.

After much thought, I have concluded that the best and most fitting way to apply the amount of the prize is by using it as a foundation to establish at Washington a permanent industrial peace committee. The object will be to strive for better and more equitable relations among my countrymen who are engaged, whether as capitalists or as wage workers, in industrial and agricultural pursuits. This will carry out the purpose of the founder of the prize, for in modern life it is as important to work for the cause of just and righteous peace in the industrial world as in the world of nations.

I again express to you the assurance of my deep and lasting gratitude and appreciation.

Theodore Roosevelt"

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"No president has inherited a bigger "mess" since the 70's."

Oh, so not EVER??? :-p

I am not thrilled that we are policing Iraq or about the world's "new perception of us" and my reason is the same for both. Since when is the USA responsible for making other entities be peaceable with anyone but us or to give them any warm, fuzzy feelings??
I agree that we need to pursue terrorists that have assaulted us as per the "making other entities be peaceable" with us concept. They don't have to like us, but they have to be peaceable or suffer the consequences. I don't think it would be such a bad idea to have a couple more countries who don't like us and don't want to borrow money, soldiers or jobs from us.

Posted by rlimbaugh (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fellow ditto heads, my flock, my mindless army, do not relent!

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome aboard rlimbaugh. You look a lot skinnier in print.

Posted by rlimbaugh (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A strict diet of Oxycontin works wonders my child.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

""No president has inherited a bigger "mess" since the 70's."

Oh, so not EVER??? :-p"

Perhaps, 2 wars, worst economic crisis since the depression, etc. When you start to list off and compare you would be hard pressed to find worse circumstances, maybe the Hoover-Roosevelt era had similar circumstances. Either way he is still walking into a cluster**** of epic proportions. I expect he will be pretty gray at the end of this term.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are going to have to start talking to yourself, as you have stopped using your regular sign on and have started using only your new character.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blaming me just because I called you a ditto head does not a detective make you. Ignore the troll, it will go away.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's my point, ignore the troll under your bridge. There isn't room for the both of you here.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

".......you would be hard pressed to find worse circumstances,....."

I wonder What Pres. Andrew Johnson would say about it?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lol, OK is it that hard for you to admit he stepped into one one of worst terms ever? Is it really that hard?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's ok to feel that the Nobel folks jumped the gun a bit by awarding Obama so early in his first term, since this is the United Staes and we are supposedly free and all.

R.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some are free, most are and all!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder what any president would have done if 9/11 happened on their watch

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy:
No, I can admit that it is one of the top ten most difficult terms, but I don't think it's one of the top five much less "epic." I think that too many Americans forget their US History because they never let it sink in and mean a lot to them in the first place. The poorest person in America right now is still more wealthy than the middle class in a lot of places and this country has seen far worse times. The problem is, we are a nation that seems to never learn from our past experiences and our bad times keep getting more frequent and closer together. I think it is an ungrateful nation that can't appreciate what it has and always wants more. We are going to drown ourselves in our own greed just like a person who drowns, thrashing to get away from the water he's in and I don't think our President has any better of a perspective on that than the average career welfare recipient. I don't think the answers are simple, but I think the person with a better appreciation of what we do have and what we have overcome that mattered would be better qualified. JMO.

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on October 21, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, I can tell you what Clinton would have been doing at the time of 9/11, he would have been busy in the "oval office" taking care of HIS business!!!!! Oops!!!!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"No, I can admit that it is one of the top ten most difficult terms, but I don't think it's one of the top five much less "epic.""

Start naming off anything worse in the last 150 years, I'm curious what you consider worse.

"The poorest person in America right now is still more wealthy than the middle class in a lot of places and this country has seen far worse times. The problem is, we are a nation that seems to never learn from our past experiences and our bad times keep getting more frequent and closer together."

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/183929...

And I saw a much better write up recently that I will try to find. You try telling a poor person here in the US that "oh its okay people have it worse elsewhere" I am sure that will make them feel much better. Wealth is relative, comparisons among our own economy are the only telling factors. There has been "redistribution of wealth" going on, and its the rich soaking the average American, not visa versa.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I wonder what any president would have done if 9/11 happened on their watch"

Time will tell, it will happen again.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 3:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"open_eyes, I can tell you what Clinton would have been doing at the time of 9/11, he would have been busy in the "oval office" taking care of HIS business!!!!! Oops!!!!"

About the same as sitting in elementary school reading children's stories=)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I would alot rather have the President reading to elementary school children. Or should we make fun of Obama's broadcast to school children now?

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

QUESTION:

Where would our country be now if Ron Paul had been elected?
Let the fun begin.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, What fun are you referring to?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think I would alot rather have the President reading to elementary school children. Or should we make fun of Obama's broadcast to school children now?"

If he was doing it while the country was under attack, you would have every reason to.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"QUESTION:

Where would our country be now if Ron Paul had been elected?
Let the fun begin."

He would stopped the wars abroad and declared war on the FDA lol.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right, goodoleboy. He should have checked his itinerary that morning, saw that an attack was scheduled at 9:15, and cancelled all appointments for the day.

Yes, I think he should have jumped right up and excused himself, and been whisked away instead of continuing reading for x minutes. Were they waiting on Air Force One to be ready? Were they telling him the prepared breifing would be in 10 minutes and not to alarm the kids? Was his staff just as confused about whether it was an accident or deliberate as the rest of the country was initially? Who knows............ maybe he was thinking "If I act calm and reassured, maybe I'll get both the Nobel Prize AND the 2004 Olympics!!!" - LOLOLOL

What did Clinton do for the first 14 minutes or so after the 1993 bombing? I know the next day his aide ordered a poll.......a few months later he fired some cruise missiles on Iraqi intelligence headquarters........ Supposedly in response to the assassination attempt on Bush. But a few days later, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the U.N. Security Council that the attack “was designed to damage the terrorist infrastructure of the Iraqi regime, reduce its ability to promote terrorism, and deter further acts of aggression against the United States. ...”
Hmmm....... Iraq linked to terrorism....... nah, only Bush would dream up something like that.......

Or, like John Kerry claimed he did when the 9/11 attacks occured, he could have just sat around dumbfounded for 45 minutes ;-)

Posted by Libertarian (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush also said in his initial campaign that the United States is not in the business of nation building, and going around the world saying to other countries that "this is how you ought to do things..." He should've gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for his "hopes" for the future...

What message does it send to the world that the leader of a nation whose jets and unmanned drones fly overhead sowing death and destruction abroad, while plundering the nation from within wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Obama has done nothing. America's "image" has changed because the presidential officeholder has change. The policies remain the same. More troops for Afghanistan's endless war. Guantanamo still open. Iraq still has no end. Bombings in Pakistan, interference still in South America. Peace? For whom?

BTW - had Ron Paul been elected, this nation would most assuredly be on the right course to recovery, a man who has done more to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize than the one who is only continuing the murderous course set forth by previous administrations.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"What did Clinton do for the first 14 minutes or so after the 1993 bombing? I know the next day his aide ordered a poll.......a few months later he fired some cruise missiles on Iraqi intelligence headquarters........ Supposedly in response to the assassination attempt on Bush. But a few days later, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the U.N. Security Council that the attack “was designed to damage the terrorist infrastructure of the Iraqi regime, reduce its ability to promote terrorism, and deter further acts of aggression against the United States. ...”
Hmmm....... Iraq linked to terrorism....... nah, only Bush would dream up something like that......."

LOL, ok because the 1993= 9/11 ok, seems like he handled OK bombing just fine, and that was the 2nd worst attack behind 9/11. Just an FYI, people don't doubt that Iraq associated with terrorists. People doubted that they had WMD's, and other than the gas WE gave them they did not. Perhaps if Clinton would have just claimed the 1993 bombings were connected to Saddam and that he had WMD's and then invaded everything would have been A OK right? That conservative streak sure is showing now, attacking Clinton, then another Dem who was not even the President, should we chastise Bush Sr. for not going all the way in Desert Storm? Go ahead and pick your side, I have none, but it is entertaining for me to you continually assault the Dems and defend the GOP, I personally choose neither, they both suck.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe the Nobel Committee was afraid that if they didn't give it to him they would be labeled racist.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Libertarian,

Like what you said, except for the part about Paul, he is more GOP than Libertarian.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Maybe the Nobel Committee was afraid that if they didn't give it to him they would be labeled racist."

LOL that is pretty damn funny, I can see good ole' Al Sharpton rambling on LOL

Posted by Libertarian (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Paul is what the GOP was supposed to be. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, a party of peace. The GOP has been hijacked and redefined by guys like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck along with their media mouthpieces. Paul is definitely more of a libertarian on social issues than most liberals and democrats, it ties into his belief in the role of a limited government.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're very confusing, goodoleboy.

1993 is linked to 9/11 because they were both by Muslim extremists groups with ties to middle-east terrorists. OK City was in response for the Waco siege by a home-grown terrorist. Did he have ties to radical Islam elements? Nobody knows for sure, but he denies it himself......
Since when is just presenting info "attacking"? Oh, right....when its from a different point of view than yours...... I understand now, you attacked a Repub & held up for a Dem, but that is different then when someone attacks a Dem and holds up for a Repub. Its all so clear to me now ;-) - Looks like your liberal streak is sure showing as well........ Well, I think Bush Sr SHOULD be chastised for not finishing the job in Iraq. We pulled back and watched over 100,000 Shiites get slaughtered. Like you said..... both parties suck.

You are pointing out and denigrating (sorry, non-attacking) Bush's response for x minutes immediately after 9/11.
I simply asked: What did Clinton do for x minutes (5-14, depending on your sources) after each attack? Since that is what you are defending in your pointing out in your "non-attack" on a Repub and your "non-defense" of a Dem, which makes your "non-liberal streak" "non-showing"....... ;-) Does anyone even know? Does anyone really care? Does it matter?

Posted by food4thought (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a JOKE! Enough said....

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Libertarian
Your last post is spot on.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't Beck a Libertarian?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beck is a loser. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJN3PGqDR...

a modern classic

"Yo, cut it."

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation;

I was refering to the "fun" replies my question would bring.
I wasn't disapointed.

I just refuse to believe that Americans in general, (Including Emporian's), are content in the way their government has being run in the last 2 decades.

And yet the two party system is all people think about.
IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!
I just don't think the two main parties will be the ones to do it.

Posted by Libertarian (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Beck allegedly became a libertarian this year, only after sabotaging and pigeonholing any legitimite opposition discourse to the two MAIN parties that ran for president. Any supporter of Barr, Paul, McKinney, etc. was thrown under the bus as kooks, anarchists, truthers on his program during the campaign.

To be fair, his rhetoric has begun to change, and he has in fact apologized (sic!) for some of the language and attacks he hurled at the opposition during the last campaign. Perhaps I was too quick to lump him with the others, just as I complained he had done himself!

Posted by Libertarian (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve_Corbin - nice post. I agree with your statements about Americans' perception of their government.

It will take a rising above the "Two Party" mindset and division in this country to do anything about it. Maybe when Americans realize that there really isn't two distinct parties, but rather one big war party and party of the elite with two branches.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many Republicans became disallusioned with the direction the party took under the latter Bush years, and I think many Democrats and Independents that had high hopes are feeling some disallusionment of their own now.
The question is, will enough of them break ranks? Or will they just hope the next candidate from their party will "change" things? Perhaps, if we can't get a third party Prez, we can get enough Independents in Congress that aren't beholden to always vote party line.......????

Posted by Libertarian (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem open_eyes, is also campaign funding, debate procedures, status quo, the "simplicity" of the two party sytem to overcome. Our campaing rules are so biased against third party candidates its immoral. Why not have a "first past the post" system like they have in some European countries and allow for multiple "legitimate" parties?

Can we get the big business, Federal Reserve, and military-industrial interests to surrender their monopoly over politicians in this country to allow for any real change? Not likely.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Call stirring the pot again, trying to make people believe he really knows what the committee was thinking by nominating and awarding Obama the undeserved prize.

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,in reference to your statement concerning Clintons actions to those of Pres. Bush's "about the same as sitting in elementary school reading children's stories". Are you saying "Boys will be boys"? If so, believe you have your priorities mixed-up. Thank you! I'll have "my" boy reading to school children!!!!! Lying?Clinton is on film denying that anything took place, sounds like we not only need to educate our young concerning sex but also our ex-PRESIDENT!!!!!! :-) Remember this IS the highest office of this land!!!!! Plus our president at that time "just wasn't sure what took place" and he wasn't in Kansas in "oz" land!!!!!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In goodoleboy's rush to attach Repubs and expose his liberal streak (his words, not mine) - he didn't mention that I also said that yes, I think Bush should have jumped right up and excused himself, and been whisked away instead of continuing reading for x minutes.

But I don't know, I'm not his aides nor the Secret Service. Perhaps they told him to sit tight while they got security ready - perhaps they decided to double-check the perimiter for 10 min & told him to continue. Perhaps they told him the briefing would be ready in 10, or Air Force One wasn't ready yet. Perhaps they were all confused, and weren't sure if it was just an aviation accident or not yet. Perhaps their intel/info was uncertain. Perhaps he told them all to kiss his $$$ he preferred to read to the kids. I don't know. I don't think it really matters, I don't know the inner workings or protocol surrounding the Pres in matters like that. Just as I don't see what the big deal was over Obama going to try for the Olympics. I'm sure anything he had to deal with he could do on Air Force One. Nor do I think what Clinton did for 10 min after any of the terrorist attacks is anything to nitpick at.

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, you are correct in "my" opinion. To "nitpick" at the time Pres. Bush stopped reading and departed, we DO NOT know what was occurring during that period of time. I'm sure we ALL (at that time) were more concerned with his "welfare"(safety, inc.) for we didn't have any clue as to where the "terrorist" would hit next. Yes, hindsight is ALWAYS better then foresight or during! Hopefully we "learned" but I truly doubt, an example, is when our current President was in Az. and there were people with weapons within so many feet of him. President Kennedy was taken out with blocks between "them" and he, but yet we allow people that are not secret service within feet of him. Shoot! I can't fly anywhere that I don't have to take my shoes off and have a "body search" before I get on that plane!!!!! Common sense????????

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree, sandman.... I can't understand that 1) Idiots brought guns to an event that close the the Prez, and 2) Secret Service weren't swarming all over them. Sure, it was legal, but I think there should be some law or special exception that weapons are not allowed anywhere near a Presidential appearance...... JMO......

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In goodoleboy's rush to attach Repubs and expose his liberal streak (his words, not mine)"

I have no "streak" other than to present both sides of the equation, I am equally disgusted with both parties. Call me what you will, I just present points that might not even be mentioned here, the writers of the gazette might slant to the left but the bloggers here are almost always very right of center.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"goodoleboy,in reference to your statement concerning Clintons actions to those of Pres. Bush's "about the same as sitting in elementary school reading children's stories". Are you saying "Boys will be boys"? If so, believe you have your priorities mixed-up. Thank you! I'll have "my" boy reading to school children!!!!! Lying?Clinton is on film denying that anything took place, sounds like we not only need to educate our young concerning sex but also our ex-PRESIDENT!!!!!! :-) Remember this IS the highest office of this land!!!!! Plus our president at that time "just wasn't sure what took place" and he wasn't in Kansas in "oz" land!!!!!"

Was there a coherent thought somewhere in there? Having a hard time deciphering one.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm kind of glad he kept reading to the kiddies. Why panic?

By taking a few more moments to get up and leave he just may have averted World War III.

How so?

I'm sure the V.P. was hollaring "NUKE EM, NUKE THE BAST_RDS!" By taking his time and sorting out all the facts over a period of a few days our POTUS came to a logical decision, Invade Iraq:)>

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"1993 is linked to 9/11 because they were both by Muslim extremists groups with ties to middle-east terrorists. OK City was in response for the Waco siege by a home-grown terrorist. Did he have ties to radical Islam elements? Nobody knows for sure, but he denies it himself......"

They are all terrorists in my eyes, and you deem that the 1993 were even in the same ballpark as the 9/11 attacks? Besides Bush was privy to the same Intel that Clinton had, so can we sahre blame on that one? Or does it have to be in Bill's lap?

1993- 6 dead 1000 injured
9/11- well too much to list here is a link
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year...

OK bomb- 170 dead 680 injured

Now that we have some scale, can we not conclude that reponse to an action are proportional to the scale of the event?

"You are pointing out and denigrating (sorry, non-attacking) Bush's response for x minutes immediately after 9/11.
I simply asked: What did Clinton do for x minutes (5-14, depending on your sources) after each attack? Since that is what you are defending in your pointing out in your "non-attack" on a Repub and your "non-defense" of a Dem, which makes your "non-liberal streak" "non-showing"....... ;-) Does anyone even know? Does anyone really care? Does it matter?"

Yes he should have got his rear end out of there IMMEDIATELY! An attack the scale of 9/11, when buildings are falling and the Pentagon is under attack the President should be somewhere SAFE calling the shots right then, not reading the little engine that could. I don't know what Clinton was doing, like you said depends on your sources, but if behaved the same way that Bush did I would say the same, I do know he handled the OK bombing well, does he need a event of 9/11 proportions so we can grade him?

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Ray Call. Your editorial is right on target. I particularly like your final paragraph, that our President has changed this nation's image. I believe you are absolutely right. In fact, I believe the world breathed a collective sigh of relief when President Obama was elected.

Your thought here bears repeating: "Leaders around the world now see the U.S. as less of a bully and more of a peacemaker. That is why Obama won the Nobel Prize."

Unfortunately, Cheney continues his war mongering rants. He must have a mighty big axe to grind.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, sometimes it seems as if there is an echo in here since everything you respond to is cut/pasted in its entirety. You know, the "walls of text" you disdain so much. Oh well, so we get to read everything at least twice.... ;-)

Let's see if I get this straight. 1993 was an attempt to bring down the World Trade Centers by Muslim extremists. It failed.
9/11 was an attempt to bring down the World Trade Centers by Muslim extremists, but succeeded.

However, for some reason, the 2 are not in the same ballpark. Purely because of the number of people killed.

It took 45 min or so for the World Trade Centers to collapse after 9/11. After 1993, nobody had any clue if the Towers might collapse at any second, (the intent was to collapse the North Tower into the South, bringing them both down). According to estimates, if he had parked his van closer to the concrete foundations, it might have succeeded.

So we have to wait until the body count is done before we can compare them?

Well, on that thinking, I guess 9/11 wasn't anywhere in the ballpark of OK City for awhile, because alot of the people weren't killed until the buildings collapsed......and I honestly don't know why we worry about Iran getting a nuke at all. They haven't killed a soul with nukes yet. Isn't even comparable to OK City until we have actual body counts ;-)

And yes, for the THIRD time, personally, I think he should have gotten out of there immediately. But again, I'm not the staff, and I don't have any clue what was going on behind the scenes. I'm sure in 14 those few minutes he could have prevented the second tower from coming down or being hit or prevented Katrina or whatever. You make a big deal out of it. I dont' think its that big of a deal. I didn't "grade" anybody. I asked what Clinton did for the first 14 minutes by comparison. AND I said I really don't think its that big a deal what either of them did for x minutes. What thread are you reading?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Unfortunately, Cheney continues his war mongering rants. He must have a mighty big axe to grind."

He wants to be president so he push the big red button=)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW, Bush was no longer with the children before any buildings fell, or the Pentagon had been hit. I realize this is just an op-ed, and by your definition its all just opinion, but just setting the timeline straight.

What was this thread about? Oh yeah..... Nobel Peace Prize...... that's given for saying polar bears are near extinction at the same time their numbers are increasing to an all-time high, right? ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They are are ALL related by the fact that they are terrorist attacks, what I said was:

Does the scale of an event not determine the action?

"So we have to wait until the body count is done before we can compare them?"

Pretty much, they tried to knock the towers down once, Clinton and Bush both failed to prevent 9/11, and when the next attack happens because our ports and borders are not secure I'll blame the current and last administration, sound fair?

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wish I could say otherwise, but the belief that polar bears are at an all-time high is a myth. *One* variety of polar bear is on the increase. A quote from a site on the issue:

"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Copenhagen in 2009), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight were declining, three were stable, one was increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. "

It's also been determined that, if present climate trends continue, two-thirds of the polar bear population could be gone by 2050. So even if things are better than they seem now (of which I'm not convinced), they're not going to stay that way.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Careful wanderer, no one puts much stock in global warming around here. Interesting statistic, last I heard Palin was claiming that Polar bears on the decline was a myth, so I am sure it's rubbish.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy, most people here DO "put stock in global warming". They just aren't convinced its all man-made.
Actually, starting in 2000 and continuing until present day, global warming has leveled off, but that info seems to be ignored as politically incorrect. In 2008, "NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. "We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south," Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated. "

Good info, wanderer, thanks. Of course, the population is still at least twice what it was several decades ago, when it dropped due to hunting pressures.
I wonder how many other animals have had their populations decline? Buffalo? Passenger pigeons? It seems man eventually squeezes out nearly every animal from its habitat...... as the sea ice decreases, so does the available land not taken over by humans.....
Arctic air temperatures were as high in the 1930's as they are presently - and we still have polar bears with us. All animal populations regularly undergo ups and downs, for many various reasons. I'm sure as the earth's population continues to increase, and more available habitat is taken from animals, we'll continue to see more decreases in various wildlife populations as their natural habitat is turned into parking lots, shopping malls, or oil fields, sadly ;-(

"A study commissioned by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice and concluded, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." Rather, the Canadian study found that changing wind patterns are the primary cause of changing sea ice distributions. Moreover, while sea ice has decreased in the Arctic, it has remained relatively constant (or even increased slightly) in the Antarctic since 1978."

BTW - yesterday, the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit with the federal government to remove polar bears from the Endangered Species Act.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since the scale of the action determines the response, I'm going to assume that if we discover Iran or someone, say, smuggles a nuke into the US, say the Super Bowl or outside the White House, but because of a faulty detonator it fails to go off, we'll pretty much ignore it then........ good to know...... no harm, no foul.... ;-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 22, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder how many people are in jail for attempted crimes? Gosh, in some countries, attempted murder carries the same max sentence as murder..... imagine that....

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes peace, when the lie becomes the truth by Michel Chossudovsky....This is really profound, please go to the site.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who did Obama beat to win the Nobel Prize-Lew Rockwell.....This is very interesting. Check it out.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Youtube Ron Paul Obama Nobel Prize......He beats up on the Right and Left--Good food for thought.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Since the scale of the action determines the response, I'm going to assume that if we discover Iran or someone, say, smuggles a nuke into the US, say the Super Bowl or outside the White House, but because of a faulty detonator it fails to go off, we'll pretty much ignore it then........ good to know...... no harm, no foul.... ;-)"

Actually in your quest to be snarky, you raise an interesting point, if we did intercept a missile from say North Korea or Iraq would we go ahead and turn them to glass? Even though they posed no threat.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I wonder how many people are in jail for attempted crimes? Gosh, in some countries, attempted murder carries the same max sentence as murder..... imagine that...."

Because our justice is a model of perfection........

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Based on your scale theory, we wouldn't do a thing - if we intercepted it before it hit, it would have zero casualties - less casualties than any of the above mentioned terrorist attacks. So there would be no reason for the Prez to be in a hurry until the missile actually hit and caused damage, I think I'm hearing. You DID say wait until the body count. However, I think most administrations/Congress would and should go ahead and consider it an act of war.

Well, its probably the usual way people reply to another's "snarky" posts. Isn't it interesting how the echo sounds when it comes back? ;-)

Besides, even in our country, attempted murder can still get you alot of years in the pen......

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Based on your scale theory, we wouldn't do a thing - if we intercepted it before it hit, it would have zero casualties - less casualties than any of the above mentioned terrorist attacks. So there would be no reason for the Prez to be in a hurry until the missile actually hit and caused damage, I think I'm hearing. You DID say wait until the body count. However, I think most administrations/Congress would and should go ahead and consider it an act of war."

I would wager you are right, we would be humane, and just invade them=) It's not a theory, its just logic, twist it how you like. Terrorists blow up a truck in an American city we would likely place a bounty or send a few special forces after a group responsible. Kill a few throusand people we go to war.

And furthormore since you seem to like to call Clinton out on the 1993 bombings, lets talk about the 1983 beirut bombing where 241 service man lost their lives, and rescuers were pinned down by sniper fire and yet we did..... nothing? Muslim terrorists attacking us before 1993? They all fail then, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and soon to be Obama if he does not make up his mind. Seems to me scale definately factors in here, unless casualties hit 4 digits we don't do much but "sanction" =)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did it not take Pearl Harbor to get us into WW2? Scale does not matter, not one bit.......

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me add in, "sanction" and continue to leave the door wide open to attack us again.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I think we've had lots of failures in the past. By lots of different administrations on both sides.

I would be willing to bet, if we intercepted a NK nuke headed to Hawaii at the last second, but not a single American life was lost, that we would go to war. Not calling it "humane" or anything else. Just simply what our response would be. With zero body count.

Might even win a Nobel Peace Prize. ;-).

And we lost more people in 9/11 than Pearl Harbor.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I would be willing to bet, if we intercepted a NK nuke headed to Hawaii at the last second, but not a single American life was lost, that we would go to war. Not calling it "humane" or anything else. Just simply what our response would be. With zero body count."

Invade or demand surrender would be the most likely course of action. But as it was mentiioned in an earlier thread America would likely not have the gumption to do what needs to be done, and that would be to turn N Korea to glass. Make an example out of them, ah the good ole days.....

"And we lost more people in 9/11 than Pearl Harbor."

Again I realize this, it just seems that to get us to respond to an attack at least a thousand or so have to die.

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodleboy or is it crack? Gee, was there a cohereent thought somewhere in there? I'm having a hard time deciphering one other then what "open-eyes" has written. You remind me of my grand-daughter at the age of three and repeating everything that is said. I know you have a reason, somewhere, for doing so, I do believe each one that does post on here can remember what they said, honest!!!!!!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I honestly don't know if America would have the "gumption" to do what it would take, in part because China is so closely aligned with NK. But I don't think we should turn them to glass. Or at least I hope we could wipe out the leadership without turning it into glass. Those poor North Koreans really have little or no clue about the rest of the world, my guess is once the border with SK came down it wouldn't take long for them to see how repressed they were kept. But China would be the wild card in that. I think at the very least we would respond in some fashion militarily, but I'm just speculating. I certainly hope we would have the gumption to do more than write nasty letters for some more toothless UN sanctions.

Goodoleboy, even I occasionally repeat a line or 2 for emphasis, or if referring to an older post. But it really is not necessary to copy every single post in its entirety to respond to. Especially when you claim to hate "walls of text". Trying to say it, yet again, as nicely as possible ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You realize that it is common practice among blogs to quote the post and poster your are referencing right? I cannot help that the Gazette has an antiquated forum. As for your "deciphering" well, the eyes see what they want, that much is clear.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So do you think we made a mistake when we dropped the 2 bombs during WW2? I personally think that set the tone for the rest of the world that if you attacked America, here it come. War is never clean, as YY4U posted Sun Tzu in another post, those rules of engagement have stood the test of time and should be observed.

As for these forums, I'll recant what I said and "grit and bear it" for now in hopes they update the forums, deal?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not say I thought it was a mistake in WWII. I said I HOPE that we could do it without resorting to that. I would never want to use nukes except as a last option. We were already in WWII at that time, and casualties were mounting on both sides. Yes, just firing off a nuke first thing would probably result in much less casualties on our side.
But, as this forum thread is about the worlds "perception" of the US........ what would the rest of the world think if our very first retaliation strike for a failed attempt (with zero casualties) was a nuke? Would whatever president did that go down in history as a "warmonger"? Would he/she be reviled? As much as I would like to say "if you attack America, here's what you'll get", I realize I can't always do that.
Disclaimer: Nor do I think we should have just first nuked Afghanistan and/or Northern Pakistan. Although that might be in the future.....

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who's Ray Call?

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he's the guy that wrote the editorial on pick up trucks.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ghostbusters!

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry folks, but I see him as the statue "The Thinker", don't always agree and sometimes have wished he would turn to stone!!!!

Posted by sandman (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read this and liked it:

I wish people would stop comparing Obama to Hitler. Hitler got the Olympics to come to Berlin!!!!

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 23, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HOPE AND CHANGE
How's it working out for everybody?

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on October 23, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

moved to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...