So again, I have to ask

What has Obama actually done to deserve the Nobel Prize?

Not whom he as inspired, there are many people, from Michael Jackson to Malcolm X who have inspired just as many, if not more people.

But what has the man done?

Has he brokered any peace deals? No. Has he stopped any wars? No. Has he freed a subject people? No. Has he led any sort of mass uprising other than that of a mundane political campaign? No.

Frankly, when you come down to it, Obama has done nothing concrete, none of the the accomplishments of past Nobel winners. Rather, he has expanded an illegal, immoral war, certainly not the actions of a so called man of peace.

Sorry, but a Nobel laureate, that just rings hollow.

Though it probably ranked up there with JFK's in terms of mass charismatic appeal, it was still a mundane political campaign. And Kennedy didn't get the Nobel for his campaign.

Isn't that enough?

:eyes:

Its more like coercion to try and force our President into following international goals determined within the Nobel committee.

:shrug:

And no doubts that Obama would deserve one anyway in a few years.

To be honest, I dont understand why the Nobel people would misuse their award in this way, nor why they would bypass people who have put themselves in real personal danger trying bring peace to their own regions, but oh well.

Obama to excel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8692832&mesg_id=8692832

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8692007&mesg_id=8692007

Fight apartheid, promote workers rights, civil rights, peace.

What has Obama actually done?

I would love for Obama to excel. Instead he is keeping one war open indefinitely while doubling down on another. Not a very peaceable thing to do:shrug:

And now must resort to fourth grade taunts. Stay classy now!

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have 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."<1>

Maybe if you knew what the PP was awarded for, you would understand.

Again, I ask, what exactly has Obama done?

The Nobel committee awards the prize according to their rules because it is their prize.

You are stuck in a rut of "what has he done" where your definition of "what" is different from that of the Nobel committee.

The Nobel committee's reasons takes precedence over yours because it is their prize.

I heard one of the committe members quote Nobel's criteria as follows:

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have 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."<1>

I would say that Obama has definitely met the first "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations".

The second "the abolition or reduction of standing armies" has certainly been done in Iraq, and he is attempting to do that in Afghanistan, and is talking to Iran instead of declaring war against Iran.

"for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" - certainly his nuclear disarmament and the removal of the missile shield fall under this category.

That is exactly what Obama has done ----- and it is not your prize to claim otherwise.

was end 8 years of republican blight upon this planet.

And even more... he has inspired millions.
Hope alone is enough for me.

And he didn't receive the Nobel.

Again, lots of people inspire, what has the man done?

and I'm sorry that you see no value in that.

However inspiration isn't generally what the Peace Price is about. It is about actions, solid, concrete deeds.

So what has Obama done, besides inspire?

Inspiration is a wonderful solid concrete deed and it is rare gift.
I wish as you said that many people could inspire equally as well.

He didn't get the ASU Honorary Degree, so now everything is back to being balanced.

So instead you're resorting to bombast and browbeating. Sad, really sad.

Answer the question.

here's the answer from the source, again...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009 ...

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has 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. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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. 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.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

And again I state, this is not up to typical Nobel standards.

So what concrete accomplishments does the man have? Peace deals, freeing people from repression? No, just being inspirational and being NotBush.

3/18/8 – Obama caught world-wide attention for his moving speech on race relations

7/24/8 - Obama lays the foundation for a new era of international relations and began inspiring renewed hope in American leadership during his campaign speech in Berlin

11/6/8 – Obama’s victory was hailed as a promise of hope for the world.

12/1/8 – Obama began plans to restore U.N. ambassador to cabinet rank.

1/22/9 - Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace

1/22/9 – Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay

1/22/9 – Ordered comprehensive review of detention policies

1/22/9 – Prohibited use of torture

1/22/9 - Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons

1/23/9 – Lifted “Global Gag Rule” on international health groups

1/26/9 – Began to address climate change by increasing fuel standards for automobiles

1/26/9 – Appointed Special Envoy for Climate Change

1/27/9 - Signs Lily Ledbetter “Fair Pay” Act

2/1/9 – Expanded healthcare for children by signing SCHIP

2/5/9 - Again addressed energy conservation by increasing standards for appliances.

2/24/9 – Directed almost $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health

2/25/9 - Initiated international efforts to reduce mercury emissions worldwide

2/27/9 – Committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq

4/1/9 – Agreed to negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

4/1/9 – Enhanced U.S. – China relations

4/2/9 - Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies

4/4/9 - Renewed dialog with NATO and other key allies

4/5/9 – Announced new strategy to responsible address international nuclear proliferation

4/13/9 – Began easing tension with Cuba through new policy stance

4/17/9 - Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism"

4/22/9 - Developed the renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents.

5/8/9 – Proposed International Affaires budget that included funds to create a civilian response corps -- teams of civilian experts in rule of law, policing, transitional governance, economics, engineering, and other areas critical to helping rebuild war-torn societies; Provide $40 million for a "stabilization bridge fund," which would provide rapid response funds for the State Department to help stabilize a crisis situation.

6/4/9 - Gave historic address to the Muslim World in Cairo - "American is not at war with Islam" Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been remarkable. "He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region"

8/4/9 - Used DIPLOMACY to free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison

9/18/9 - De-escalation of nuclear tension through repurposing of missile defense prompting Russia to withdraw its missile plan.

Sorry, but your list is simply one of inspiration speeches and the cleanup after Bush work. None of this compares with past Nobel laureates. It is, in fact, pretty normal, mundane political stuff. It just seems extraordinary in comparison with Bush.

Get back to me when he brokers a peace deal of the scope of the Camp David Accords.

Google "Nobel Peace Prize".

The people who award the NPP have every right to follow what they think is correct.

You are stupid, and willfully ignorant.

I am asking a simple question, namely what has Obama actually done?

You apparently can't answer that question, so like so many others who can't answer that question, you resort to gradeschool insults and name calling. Classy.

It may not be in the form of a treaty, but the world political climate has changed dramatically.

War is still raging on two fronts, we still have nuclear problems, one that have increased as both N. Korea and Iran have rattled that nuclear chain. Yes, he has inspired the world, but stating that the world political climate has changed dramatically simply means that I'm going to have to ask you to prove that statement.

That's what he represents.

No, the problems in the world aren't solved, but Obama has jolted the world in the right direction.

Sure, he's made some inspirational speeches. So did many others. But when it comes to actual deeds I find it rather Orwellian that a man who has doubled down in one illegal, immoral war while indefinitely extending the duration of another is awarded a Peace Prize.

No point in responding - none so blind as those who will not see. Sad, because I thought that selective blindness was a right-wing ailment.

It seems as though the death of innocents is just fine with you, just so long as it is Obama ordering the killing. Stunning.

Sorry, but the paradigm shift from Bush to NotBush isn't, in and of itself, worthy of a Peace Prize. After all, you can argue that Clinton brought about that same sort of paradigm after twelve years of Reagan/Bush. And hell, Clinton even actually accomplished something, the Good Friday accords. Yet he wasn't awarded the Peace Prize. But we should give it to a man who has no similar accomplishments and is busily engaged in killing innocents on two fronts? Sorry, but I can't go there.

And what, just what, would you propose doing about these innocents who are dying? Are they going to magically stop dying when America leaves and creates a power vacuum?

Life sucks - and yes, we (meaning Bush et al) created the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we're not going to make it magically all go away by packing up and leaving. That's reality, cold hard reality. We can find some ways to minimize it, make it less painful for all parties involved, get some international involvement in solving the clusterfuck that we created (Hint, hint - this is what Obama is trying to do and what, frankly he seems to be making strides in the right direction, leading to his being awarded the prize) but I'm sorry, John Lennon was wrong, the War isn't over if we want it. There are steps that need to be taken to assure that some other tyrant doesn't just move in.

I remember Clinton's election - I don't remember the WORLD, not just the nation, celebrating the way they did when Obama was elected. And I also don't remember the global hostility towards our nation under Reagan or Bush 1. Well, maybe under Reagan, but I don't remember Bush Sr. being burned in effigy in the streets of Europe.

You know, Carter was awarded the Peace Prize 20+ years after he brokered his peace deal. The people who actually signed it were awarded it the year it happened. Participants in the Good Friday Accords were awarded the prize 10 years ago. Maybe, if precedent holds, Clinton will get his award in another 10 years or so.

Edited for grammar and spelling on very little sleep...

You know, they say that one definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while getting the same result. We're engaged in that form of insanity.

Amazing, when we pulled out of Vietnam, the same arguments were made that there would be wholesale slaughter there, etc. Hmm, as I remember, after an initial period of disruption, the country was calmed and experienced peaces for the first time in thirty plus years. Amazing how the absence of military forces does that.

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, a contradiction in terms and thought that simply never works.

I must be insane because I'm trying over and over to change the mind of some anonymous poster on the Internet whose only response to the suggestion that perhaps Obama has accomplished something in the abstract is that he's "doubled down in one illegal, immoral war while indefinitely extending the duration of another."

Stupid me, I know I've got a low post count but I should know better.

Is more important than killing innocents in reality. Nice to see your priorities on this, low post count or no.

I'm saying that by engaging and inspiring the world community he is likely preventing clusterfucks like Afghanistan and Iraq from happening again, like, say, in Iran. And maybe if we have a stronger diplomatic presence in the world thanks to our greater standing, we won't do something unilaterally stupid like Iraq.
Since you are so concerned about innocents being slaughtered, what do you propose doing in Darfur? Do we just ignore that because we're not the ones doing the slaughtering? Or do we engage the world community, which now all of a sudden seems to listen to us again, and try and find a solution?
And a little closer to home, what should we have done about the 3000 innocents who were slaughtered on 9/11?

What a great pun. He certainly HAS jolted the nation, anyway, in the "right" direction.

:rofl:

will buy ya a cup of coffee.

Knocked over the stand-up stapler, too.

What graceless crap.

Or just spew meaningless garbage about your apparent anger management problem.

Your post is graceless crap.

Tell me exactly what Obama has done. Inspiration is well and fine, but actions speak much louder. Yet there are no actions that Obama has taken other than keeping one war open indefinitely and doubling down on another.

So again, if you think my question is so much crap, refute it.

As the day's political commentary has suggested already.

One takes it on its own merits, and you can either refute it logically or you can't. So far all you've done is toss in personal attacks and ad hominems.

So again, list Obama's accomplishments. It is a simple request, but you can't seem to do it. Oh, wait, there's a reason for that. Never mind.

our president.

I call that graceless.

The slang noun 'crap' works here as well, inasmuch as comportment in moments of revered exchanges between (in this case) the Nobel Prize Commitee and a U.S. President deserves more adult conduct than your post is willing to lend it.

Graceless. Crap.

Tell me, when was the last time that a Nobel Laureate actually went off to a meeting of his personal war council the morning he received word of the award?

The President of the United States is -- I hate breaking this to you of a sudden -- the Commander in Chief of the armed forces as well.

Swear to god.

You can like, ask the Founders.

While dragging the other one out indefinitely. Yeah, the dead innocents of both wars think that this is real fine Nobel material.

I would personally suggest that the appropriate response to a recipient of the Nobel Prize is

c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s

One cannot criticize or wonder why?

Sounds more like a fascist mindset there than a liberal one.

And still I ask that one basic question that you can't seem to answer, except in terms of schoolyard taunts. Why?

Graceless.

Wow, that's rather hyperbolic of you. Almost bordering on a cult like mentality. Don't dare question the Great Leader.

Sad, really sad.

The intent of your post is to diminish Obama by pretending he is undeserving of the Prize awarded by the members of the Nobel Committee.

I note collaterally that your recs aren't exactly racking up to the heavens on this one.

Your post is graceless. It's poor form.

All you need to do is provide a list of Obama's accomplishments. Like brokering peace deals(Trimble and Hume) or promoting civil rights in your country(Mandela) or banning and clearing landmines(Williams) or working for human rights(Jung).

I note that you can't provide any such accomplishment, just insults and thinly veiled attacks. So that simply leads me to believe that despite all your blather, Obama has no real Nobel worthy credits to his name:shrug:

As far as recs go, I don't give a rat's ass, I post what I post because I want to. It seems as though only the uberpartisan bullyboys around here put much stock in recs. Get over it. It is childish.

I do world politics, to the extent that I believe, as do many, that one person's example resonates across the seas, all the seas, to all lands and their people.

That would not only include a president of the United States, but in the instance of THIS president of the United States, it would suggest a global model more universally revered and respected than any U.S. president in quite a damn long time.

Your "question" is not fair because it presumes you have a vote on a Committee of which you are not part and it asserts that your response to that Committee's decision is justified in its objection of the conclusion.

It is also graceless. The Nobel Prize is a mark of honor. It is a bookmark upon History's struggles and when a good man is awarded the Prize it is universally understood to generate praise and congratulations.

Your post attempts to diminish both the nature of the Prize and its recipient.

Graceless crap.

When presented with what you think is a contentious question you resort to childish antics and insults, none of which even rise to the level of base sophistry.

I presume nothing, vote or otherwise, and if my post is so insignificant as you have implied before, how can it diminish anything?

My post is simply a question, one that is logical and fair. Yes, it implies criticisms of Obama's war policies, but with innocents dying needlessly every single day, I feel that criticism is justified.

thread.

At least you finally admitted your motive was to criticize.

Now, your next step is to contact the Nobel Committee at once and convey to them what clueless morons they are.

Don't type another syllable on DU tonight. Call the Committee and once and let 'em have it. After all, your criticism is justified.

What, the death of innocents, deaths that are a direct result of Nobel Laureate Obama starting to get to you. Just wait, we're going to be killing many, many more, all for no good reason.

Your bluster and bravado are nothing, you can tell me what to do all night long, but are it shows is that have no moral or intellectual basis to stand on.

Whoops, this should be in response to post 99. The night is getting late, at least for me.

Committee -- and the rest of us here -- on the deaths of innocents, as if the Nobel Committee and DU members were in fact in favor of said deaths.

It is my feeling that the Nobel Committee is not in favor of the deaths of innocents. I'll join them in that position, if that isn't too hopeful a stance to take in your view.

All day yesterday and all over the web and general world media the Peace Prize was widely discussed. The Nobel Committee was quite clear in its rationale and that rationale is widely available for your reading enjoyment should you care to consult it.

But that isn't what you did. You blew it off and posted your usual anti-Obama crap on this site. In accepting the Nobel Prize, Obama used the word 'humble,' and re-cast the moment as a shared global initiative toward the Good. Very clearly you missed that part. Most probably you missed it on purpose.

I happen to agree with him.

And I'm not lecturing the Nobel committee, I'm asking a simple question, one that apparently you can't answer. Even the Nobel committee stated that they weren't giving Obama the prize for anything concrete, but in essence they were giving it to him for being inspirational and for being NotBush.

Sorry, but I think that really isn't up to the usual Nobel standards.

Thanks! :hi:

I imagine that it's in their recent archives. The sheer Orwellian quality of that phrase stunned me.

:yoiks:

And to MadHound - it appears to me that a summary of your argument is essentially this:

"President Obama hasn't stopped the war in Afghanistan, pulled the troops out of Iraq and has not brokered any peace deals. Other people have done more and are more deserving of the prize."

In this context you are inescapably, undeniably correct. You win this point. Everybody with me now (and this is not shouting - it is for emphasis) - MADHOUND WINS THIS POINT!!!

There. I've agreed with the fact that your position cannot be defeated. Guess what? I still think your post is a PIECE OF CRAP (that was shouting).

In honor of this post I propose that each member of the DU community consider awarding a Rabid Dog Prize (can't call it a MadHound Prize because that might be considered calling you out by DU rules) to posters who "adopt a shrill, insulting, hateful, unenlightened or otherwise 'fuck you all - I'm right and you'll never change my mind' attitude" and refuses to let a point go even after if it obvious that they are arguing just for argument's sake.

You could put this in the subject line like many do the k & r. Example:

Subject: RDP PLZ STFU n/t

Or something similar. So let me be the first to grant one of these awards. I will put it in a reply to your original message so it can be more prominently displayed.

why don't you read this statement from the Nobel organization. If that doesn't work, well...

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009...

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has 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. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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. 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.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

And frankly they are essentially stating that they voted for Obama because he is inspirational and NotBush.

Pardon me, but I don't think that such accomplishments measure up to the typical Nobel standard.

What, exactly, has Obama done?

and demand that they retract their awarding to Prize to President Obama.

Don't stand for their knee-jerk liberalism one minute!

here, at least in some quarters.

Awfully nice to see you knockin' around this joint, babylonsister.

as an extension, destiny? Well, okay then. :7 :thumbsup:

Because it contains a list of very real accomplishments from changing the missile defense program to nonproliferation to NATO comity to clearly denouncing torture and more. I think perhaps people don't understand the full extent of desperation the rest of the world has been feeling. We've been shocked and horrified, but not truly personally threatened. The rest of the world has been shocked, horrified AND terrified because who knows what Commander Cuckoo-Bananas is going to do next.

I was actually dissing the OP. Sorry.

I was just saying that there actually IS a list of accomplishments and we should start reminding folks. This man has actually done A LOT, at home and in foreign policy, while conducting one war and mopping up another.

While prolonging the duration of another such war is altering the course of global diplomacy?

Well, I guess so, but I wouldn't look at it in such a positive light.

You won't ever find anything good a Democrat does. He's done exactly what he said he would and you might want to consider that NATO is in Afghanistan too and wants an end to terrorism more than we do.

But again, how does that qualify him for a Peace Prize?

This isn't about finding good in what a Democrat does, this is about finding what Obama has done in order to get a Nobel prize. Again, somehow I doubt that doubling down on one illegal, immoral war, while dragging out another indefinitely really qualifies for a Peace Prize.

and the terrorism part. How you ignore the change in the Pakistan policy. Ignore the change in torture policy. You ignore everything that the Nobel committee considered so it is easy to come to any conclusion you want to. That is exactly what a rightwinger does. Or a demagogue. Whichever.

Something else you might want to consider about the UN charter. An invading country has an obligation to maintain stability once they are in charge. Did you know that? At this point, we'd be breaking UN mandates if we left either Iraq or Afghanistan and genocide or other atrocities took place.

Life isn't as simple as you want to make it out to be.

didn't end any wars, broker any peace deals or free any people. Neither did Mother Theresa. Or Henry Kissinger. So what's your point?

This is not about what is concrete. It is what is possible. The woman who won for her work in land minds didn't end land minds, but she did draw attention to the issue and that in and of itself the Nobel Committee felt was a valid accomplishment.

with which we were almost at fisticuffs under the Bush regime (Russia), garnered world support to rid the planet of nuclear weapons, to name a few.

I'd say he's accomplished plenty, and with the hope of much more to come. I'm proud to be an American again, and America is no longer viewed with derision -- or fear -- as a bully.

Has Dennis commented?

While dragging out the other one indefinitely.

Oh yeah, that's real Peace Prize material there.

nuclear weapons or criticism by the small-minded.

What he has done -- largely through the agency of inspiration -- is make it possible to focus American and global energies on peace initiatives in a way that was absolutely impossible under the prior administration.

I'm sorry if that seems trivial to you, but happily your judgement doesn't matter.

If you start with what the Nobel committee said, then read what Obama said in acceptance, then read what it means to people around the world, its actually pretty inspiring. I'm not going to convince you, but if you open your eyes and think about it, its a very hopeful thing.

Direct talks between the U.S. and Iran. That hasn't happened in 30 years.

Obama seeks nuclear disarmament deal with Russia. Hillary Clinton to head US efforts to reduce warheads to about 1,000

The U.S. House has approved climate-change legislation backed by Obama.

U.S. President Barack Obama urged world leaders at a climate-change summit in New York to work together on a new carbon emissions treaty.






If your criteria were applied to all laureates equally, no one would ever have won because in each and every case, the recipient is WORKING TOWARD a goal, not necessarily realized.

Gore was recognized for laying the foundation for measures needed to counteract climate change. But those measures have yet to be enacted, so I guess, according to you, he should give the award back.

In 1994, Arafat, Rabin and Peres shared the prize for "their efforts to create peace in the middle east". But there is no peace in the middle east, so I guess they never deserved their award.

:)

More of it, as opposed to less, might just go a long way.

Nice to see ya on the boards tonight, Swamp Rat.

:hi: I need all the hope I can get... and some healthcare might be nice.

have a far far better chance of them under this president.

I think the Nobel Committee made a very good selection this morning.

and to protect us from the next storm (we need more and better levees), as well as a little justice for what Bushler did to us.

over the next storm is sound, practical thinking.

Bordering damn close to excellent citizenship, and you are right THERE on the front lines where the continent meets the hurricanes.

We're sitting on a plate that is subsiding, as the tectonic plate that Louisiana is sitting on, is sinking under another tectonic plate, which pulling Louisiana toward the Gulf of Mexico. x(

(snip)

"Based upon GPS data collected between 1995 and 2006 they conclude that the southeastern portion of Louisiana, including New Orleans and the Mississippi Delta, is sliding atop of a large listric normal fault system. This hanging wall portion of the fault is moving south at a rate of about 2 mm/year and subsiding at a rate of about 5.2 mm/year.

(snip)

http://geology.com/news/labels/Subsidence.html"

shenanigans by Mother Earth.

Come stay with us up here.

And please definitely bring your music collection!

To me 32 degrees F feels like Absolute Zero. :scared:

If the winters are too cold, do y'all at least have good parties indoors? Can I bring my lute and table music?

variable in the Committee's decision to award the prize to the young American president, although it is bandied about in responses here and abroad as one element of the rationale.

To give all your sources their due, it was with demonstrable hope that Demeter searched for her daughter. The torment referenced is real, certainly, but cannot be navigated around. It cannot be removed from dedication and love. Moreover it cannot be diminished in Demeter's total narrative and purpose because along her way, hope clearly attendant, she is welcomed to the supper table of a peasant family and it is to that family's youngest son that she reveals the divine secret of the grain.

A very useful by-product of her journey. Also one which is not time-specific. She honors in the youngest son his earnestness, the absence of cynicism. That son's older brother dismisses Demeter, unaware that she is divine, and for his loose, cynical tongue he is turned into a lizard by the goddess.

Extracting from Demeter's story the impulse to award Good we have Dubya cast as the older son and Barack Obama as the earnest younger son, a personification of the promise of fruitful agriculture, of bountiful harvest.

If there is a divine secret of sustaining harvest and survival, it is to the younger earnest son that such a secret be shared.

The selection committee choose him, I think Obama is kind of embarrassed about it. He probably wishes they would have waiting until there was a specific incident to name.

:shrug:

wait until there's a specific incident/accomplishment. And although I'm sure he's flattered beyond means, I bet a part of him was thinking "I can just hear the Freeps now." Poor guy can't catch a break.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693095

When you add them all up, they are the building blocks of a very real path to peace. We better recognize it because we might not get this opportunity again.

Looks like it worked.

:shrug:

It's real, real funny.

It's a GREAT line.

Goddam soshlist FORNERS makin' that black guy look good.

lol

Speakin' that funny lingo.

Bet they eat lutefisk.

and their child porn laws ---- ooops.

But, otherwise I don't begrudge him for winning the Nobel. ;)

ticket, where in greater Washington, DC would she have been able to hunt from airplanes, and what animals would have been her victims?

It would have been entertaining, kind of, to hear her respond to a question like that.

... then the moosies.

Whew. That captures sweet Sarah but perfect, don't it.

O my god.

And some say men are the most dangerous predators. :scared:

She is exactly what you say she is.

....for the potentials the person represents.....Gorbachev

this is just more of the constant whining about this prize and the President.

The Nobel committee gave it for reasons they thought were good enough and your agreement or understanding is not needed no matter how many times you ask. In fact, I suspect your opinion of the decision means less than nothing to them.

Now, please go off and find something worthwhile to sdo with your time.

Doing their best to shut down logical discussion and prevent embarrassing questions. Stay classy now!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

One that is apparently hard to answer, especially in light of Obama doubling down in one war while indefinitely prolonging another.

I realize that this is a hard question for you to take, but the hard questions are the ones that need to be answered.

since someone saw fit to have the last, more honest, answer deleted.

You are not asking a question. Not even a rhetorical question.

You are picking at a scab, making a point, and no answer will satisfy you unless it is one you agree with.

And everyone here knows it.

I'm making the point that we're hypocritically awarding the Peace Prize to a man who has doubled down in one illegal, immoral war while indefinitely increasing the duration of another illegal, immoral war. Doesn't this rewarding of war with a Peace Prize seem rather Orwellian to you? Or are you simply too blinded by your partisan glasses to understand the injustice of this?

Tell you what, why don't you ask a citizen of Afghanistan who has lost a family member to a missile or bomb or bullet in the last few months whether Obama is deserving of a Peace Prize.

Oh, wait, your non-answer is indeed an answer. In other words you can't come up with any concrete accomplishments, just personal attacks on a poster who dares to ask this question. More bullyboy tactics.

you have something worthwhile to add.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8693815&mesg_id=8693815

Hey, you clicked into this thread, you brought it on yourself. But apparently you simply can't answer the question I originally posed. That's OK, I understand.

even though it answers your annoying, ridiculous "question."

You may be either lazy or stupid, but nonetheless useless and have nothing to contribute to any reasonable discussion here.

It doesn't answer a thing, just more meaningless pabulum.

It is obvious no answer will satisfy this poster because it is not about the prize but the man who won the prize. A man who did not ask for this honor to be bestowed upon him. It reminds me of the rabid Vick folks. At some point their so called "cause" gets lost in their own negativity.

OP, I see you are getting unrec out of the park. Probably because you whined about this very thing yesterday and all the while people kept giving you answers that you refused to accept. Your refusal to accept is your right. However, as someone noted earlier, mother Theresa did not end any wars. MLK did not end wars, the man did not even live to see his dream fulfilled. Thankfully this decision is not up to you and the self righteous of your ilk. IMO, there is nothing righteous about a cause that gets lost in a bunch of negativity. You can scream about the dead children all you want. That does not mean that your fellow liberals do not care about the dead. You obviously have no idea.

I am just laughing my ass off at Bush's reaction when he heard the news.

Engineer4Obama found it, to be precise. :)

after trying to figure out the logic behind this all day, the only consistent theme is "not being George Bush".

Carter, Gore, now Obama - it appears the Nobel Peace Prize has been reduced to commentary on U.S. politics.

Everywhere I went today people were talking about it and wondering wtf he's done to earn this award. Only place I have heard anyone praising him is on the internet.

This is nuts. Makes zero sense.

And for the record, I think he has been a great president. Still glad I voted for him.

there isn't any "deserve" to it. They can choose based on any reasons they want.

There, there. It'll be all right. :hug:

Things like the Nobel Prize, or the Oscars or Emmys, whatever don't determine whether or not my day is a good one.

What determines whether or not I have a good day is how well my family and friends are doing, how well my students are learning, and things like how many innocents died in Afghanistan due to a president who has doubled down in an illegal, immoral war.

But hey, thanks for your "concern"

Or perhaps you're still young enough for the Pampers:shrug:

they decided to use the prize as a means to influence the course of coming events, rather than as a reward for something he has accomplished.

That's my thought. And while being NotBush is indeed something desirous, this is a man who has doubled down in Afghanistan, and is dragging the Iraq war out indefinitely. I find it rather Orwellian that a man waging two illegal, immoral wars is winning a Peace Prize, even if he is NotBush.

Man, I love how insane this is making some of you.

Rather delusional of you to think that such prizes make people insane.

I'm just asking a simple question, what did the man do to deserve this award?

Apparently you have no logical answer either, and are just covering your lack of a logical answer with bluster and personal attacks. Typical.

to try and engage you on logical terms. The Committee has made clear why they awarded Obama the Nobel. And by the way, your fear and loathing of Obama are patently obvious to even the most casual observer. But don't let me interrupt your endless hate.

You can't answer the question, so you're resorting to attacks. Not that this surprises me, it's a typical ploy of yours.

Fear and loathing, hate of Obama? Sorry, but I don't even know the man. I strongly disagree with many of his policies, especially the fact that he has doubled down in one illegal, immoral war while indefinitely prolonging another. I think that awarding a Peace Prize to a man who has done that is rather Orwellian, but hey, apparently Orwell is OK with you. Not really all that surprising.

toward the international community, international organizations, particular countries, international treaties and human rights standards, and has begun the largest military withdrawal in 40 years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6738015&mesg_id=6738015

What is so hard to understand about that???

Involved doubling down in an illegal, immoral war. What is so hard to understand about that?

It was approved by the Security Council on the basis of the 9/11 attacks, and the Security Council continues to renew its authorization.

Namely Pakistan. Where we're running operations over the border. Invading a sovereign nation.

Those pesky details.

And let's not even get into the morality of the matter.

Let's take it one step at a time. So the Afghan war is legal?

As for Pakistan, in international relations, whether an action such as firing weapons into Pakistan is legal, is largely determined by the reaction of Pakistan. If Pakistan has not declared it illegal or protested it, then no, it's not illegal. If they give explicit or implicit consent, it's legal.

Even the generals and Obama acknowledge that.

And with an eight ton gorilla on its border, do you think that Pakistan is going to protest anything. Not to mention that the legality of war is determined by whether or not the victim complains. It is determined by the aggressor's actions. We have invaded a sovereign nation, we have killed the innocents of that sovereign nation. That is illegal and has been recognized as such for a very long time, codified into law even. Your twists of logic to defend this illegal war only goes to show your own moral bankruptcy.

I would like to see your evidence the war is illegal.

Go consult the UN charter. Go do your research.

and that your source was your wife the "economist".

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What utter bullshit you spew. Don't you now the laws of war are available on line an anyone can see you're wrong?

But hey, if they're so easy to link to, do so, prove me wrong.

Oh, yeah, right, never mind.

Nader defending, Gore bashing "democrat" who started sympathizing with those leaving for "Greener" pastures in Dec. '08 doesn't think Obama is worthy.

How... shocking.

:eyes:

Maybe they have good reason for what they did. It's their call.

Meanwhile, how's the rec's coming?

objectives and those objectives do not include 'rewards for things done'? The Prize is a tool of the Foundation, granted to further their objectives. They seek to stimulate future actions more than they seek to celebrate the past. It is not a lifetime achievement award. It is carrot on stick, not cake on plate. Do you think for example that Kissinger was given the award for being peaceful? For all that peace he made? Arafat? Was the point of his award the same as MLK's? And notice that Gandhi was never awarded the Nobel. Kissinger but not Gandhi. Think about that. It is not a prize from the Woodstock Nation. It is the Nobel. And they have rules and objectives and an agenda, all of which are theirs alone.
This OP does not criticize Obama but it does criticize the committee, and that is nonsense. I bet you do not even know their rules as they state them.

Probably why I prefer the Ghandi Peace Award, which is awarded for actual contributions to world peace.

Of course, when thinking about contributions to a peaceful world, I'd go with Ghandi over Nobel any day of the year.

The real irritant here is having the concept of "peace" attached to someone who is waging war, and having the concept of "peace" attached to what constitutes a political bribe for political purposes.

That said, I'm sure Obama is honored, and if it spurs him to end the war on terror and get U.S. troops out of the middle east, it will have served a good purpose.

Trying to stifle legit discussion by telling people to shut the fuck up. Classy.

Why don't you try answering the question. Or can you answer the question. Judging by your post, I would say not, all you can do is try and play the bullyboy noob.

By the way - low post count doesn't mean that I havent been around - I just don't post much. It's easy to get to 1,000 posts by endlessly posting "but what has he done??? prove me wrong!!!"

As an edit to reply #161 and RDP should be awarded to someone who is technically right about a subject but maybe should take the blinders off and see things in a broader perspective.

To use snark and bullyboy tactics to try and stifle debate. And yet even you admit that Obama has done absolutely nothing concrete to deserve this award. You must be getting whiplash going back and forth between those two extremes.

Yes, you've been around alright, a little over a year. Big whoop. You're still debating at about a fourth grade level. Get back to me when you mature a bit and want to have an actual discussion or debate on the issues.

My attempt was not to try to stifle legitimate discussion. Make a new point besides "prove me wrong!!!" and you might get some discussion. I'm just tired of the scratchy, broken record.

For the record (whether we are legitimately in either Afghanistan or Iraq) our presence in both places probably lends some stability and security that they would otherwise not have. I don't believe that we should stay forever but if we have an opportunity to do something constructive now we should do it. Once we leave we won't be able to go back. If we can't do anything constructive, then we should absolutely get the hell out. Give the man some time though. He's got a lot more to worry about than you do.

He won. Get over it. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

:bounce:

I voted, donated and worked for the man, so what is your point?

Oh, I get it, you think by your clever use of snark and bullyboy tactics you can shut down honest questions. You also think that you can up your inability to answer the question.

Got it, all you've got left is bullyboy tactics because the fact of the matter is that Obama, while winning the Peace prize has doubled down on one illegal, immoral war while indefinitely continuing another.

Obama won the Peace prize and it's too late for you to stop it neener neener neeeeeeeener!!!!!

EAT THAT NEGO!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!

For once, I love your nasty twisted sense of humor. lol.

Just snark and bullyboy tactics. Stay classy!

Ohhhhh Beeee A. M. A... He won the Peace Prize yes ter day.

Ohhhhh Beeee A. M. A... Morons still bitter eeee ven to day

Ennn Ohhhh B. E. L... Obama earned it really well.

Ennn Ohhhh B. E. L... The complaining simpletons can go to...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

By your behavior and lack of critical thinking, my guess would be no.

I can't answer it either... sorry :(

and many others throughout the world have noticced.

Namely, President Obama has called for people of all faiths, races, nationalities, etc to come together for the greater good of mankind.

Carter received the prize for trying to get peace in the Middle East; Woodrow Wilson received the prize for his attempt to bring the world together after WWI...both of these were failures, but it was the point that they tried to do something to promote peace.

The only people who think this was an "error", seem to be here in the US, and they are indeed a small contingent of disgruntled individuals that would complain if Jesus Christ himself were awarded the honor.

I am not the only one feels the honor of having an American awarded this honor. To me, it shows me that the Committee perceives that some people have the prestige and power to try and accomplish change for the betterment of humankind.

Lots of people made that call and had the credentials of actually done something. Obama has made good speeches, inspired people, but other than that, what has he actually done?

Doubled down on an illegal, immoral war in Afghanistan? Now that's prime Peace prize material.

as a vet, I know that there can be no, "immediate" cessation, logistically it is impossible, it takes months to even get ready to leave.

The president offered a way out back in January, using a year as the time line.

I can tell you this though, I would expect a bloodbath once we detach. Naturally, that will be blamed on Obama, as opposed to bush, who holds responsibility for the initial invasion and ensuing war/occupation.

Another aspect of this was that the Commission slapped the previous administration, the one's that are more responsible for a departure from negotiation to armed conflict to "solve" problems.

bush himself may have received the PP years ago...if bin-Laden had been captured w/o starting 2 wars and an endless scenario of destruction.

Just as Wilson never dreamed of the future horror of WWII because of his failure in establishing the League of Nations, he still made a serious attempt to avoid future carnage...for this, he was awarded the Nobel PP. He went where few before him had gone, he tried, and that is why he was awarded the prize.

This OP demonstrates it perfectly. Those in the middle understand why Obama won this award (even if Obama himself has said that he doesn't think that he deserves it yet). It's because of what he's TRYING to accomplish.

But, those on the far right & left have go so far off the deep end that they don't even realize they're somehow on the same team screaming at Obama.

Congrats.. enjoy that company. :puke:

He was as surprised as anyone and even said that he felt it was undeserved. Even fucking Pat Buchanan understands that this in no way reflects on President Obama, but instead is all about the panel that voted for him to get the Nobel Prize. You're not dumber than Pat Buchanan, are you? I certainly hope not.

/unrec

EDIT: And why are you asking "again"? Didn't you get the accolades that you were looking for when you asked the first time?

I'm simply asking a question. Deal with it, one way or the other, answer it or not. Somehow I doubt that you can.

"Frankly, when you come down to it, Obama has done nothing concrete, none of the the accomplishments of past Nobel winners. Rather, he has expanded an illegal, immoral war, certainly not the actions of a so called man of peace."

Should he have told them to fuck themselves? What do you fucking want with regards to the NPP?

Classic "I'm just asking...." trollery. No answer will satisfy you, other than "I too, hate Obama."

Not blaming him for the awarding of the prize.

I would have had a lot more respect for him if he had followed his statement about not deserving the prize with a polite refusal of it. It would have been gracious and reflected honesty.

And frankly for you to accuse me of being a troll is laughable. I've been around here longer than you have. Don't like what I say, you have two choices, either debate me over it or move on. Calling me a troll is an assholish move and just goes to show that you can't answer the question and can't use logic in order to debate the issue.

I didn't call you a troll, but I believe you're trolling for an argument with this thread. Just like you didn't call me an asshole, but said that I made an "assholish move", right? Same thing.

In your thread title, you mentioned that you're asking "again". If you didn't like the responses that you got the first time you asked, why are you starting up that same shit?

"I've been around here longer than you have." So fucking what? Are you calling me a newbie? I've been here over six years, for fuck's sake. (And why the hell do people click on profiles just to point ridiculous shit like that out?)

"Calling me a troll is an assholish move and just goes to show that you can't answer the question and can't use logic in order to debate the issue." I suspect that no amount of logic will change your mind, so why bother. Frankly, I was as surprised as anyone that he was even nominated in the first place, but I don't see the need to go on and on and on and on about it. He didn't made the decision. You didn't make the decision. I didn't make the decision. If you want an answer (not that you'd accept it) talk to the Norwegians.

And a polite refusal would have been more assholish (to use your word) than a humble acceptance. Which he did.

What are you hoping to accomplish?

Its because hes not Bush. Prisoners sit, with no trial, in Guantanamo. Americans are still being spied on. Corporations continue to outsource all our jobs. Banks continue to rip us off and reap our tax dollars. Mercenaries are still being paid billions and occupying foreign countries. Soldiers are being blown up in illegal wars. children are dying from our bombs. The lobbyists continue to own the politicians with no repercussions. Wolves are slaughtered in the name of Ken Salazar. Gay equal rights are thrown onto the back burner again. Xe (Blackwater) and defense dept contracts are still ripping us off. We have huge bases in Iraq to steal their oil for oil corporations. Its a scam, a sham, and its total bullshit.

That is the ugly truth, but many people around here can't handle the truth.

No doubt because everyone knows that Obama hasn't earned that prize.

They can dress it up and say it's because he's not * and that he inspired people with hope & change, but that's a bunch of hogwash and everyone knows it.


Michael Moore told Obama to earn that prize.

Well, I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.



Well, at least Obama was honest when he said he didn't deserve it.

I'm guessing none.

Name a peace treaty that he's brokered. Or people that he's freed. Or civil or human rights that he has advanced. You know, something along those lines.

Oh, wait, he's done none of those things. Never mind.

When you get to write the rules as far as what actions qualify for the NPP, you can write those in.

From Nobelprize.org: As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "the person who shall have 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". Of those three requirements, I'd say that he's done well with 1 & 3.

2....not so much. <--- See? I threw you a bone.

BUT! It says nothing about treaties, people freed, or civil & human rights.

Is that solid, concrete, and rational enough?

Instead lots of ugly name calling, excuses, pious mouthings. But no solid answer.

Yet it's worse now more than ever and hard to tell what side anyone is on anymore. :yoiks:

The Bush administration was a lawless one. It was openly obnoxious to the world. It proudly pursued its goals of conquest, and treated all other countries as second class citizens in the world.

Obama attacked that as a key part of his campaign, starting early in 2008. His position set him apart from the other top Dem candidates. He held to the ideals he espoused, however, and took a lot of heat, first from Hillary, then later from McCain and Palin.

His devotion to the ideal of talking with those with whom we have disputes is the key to his getting the prize. The OP does what the right does: it fails to see the reality of the world's view of the US before Obama, and the role he has played in revising US policy toward the world.

The world does not use Iraq and Afghanistan as the only factors to consider. They recognize it was a mess long in the making and it will not be quick in the conclusion. In many ways, most of the educated world is lot more sound in their assessment of Obama than are those of many on this board.

I am very disappointed in Obama for his Afghanistan and Iraq dawdling, but I still think he deserves the award because he did more than anyone else to promote peace with his commitment to it in his campaign.

Frankly I find awarding the man who has doubled down in Afghanistan, while committing us to an ongoing occupation in Iraq to be rather Orwellian at best.

The man has done nothing concrete. Clinton redirected the world view on conflict after the Reagan Bush years, but he got nothing.

What has Obama actually done to deserve the Nobel Prize?

>The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

>The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his >extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has 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. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as >instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully >stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in >meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

>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. 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.

>For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama >is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of >responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

>Oslo, October 9, 2009


>I do not see anything about the inherited wars in their statement. Any irony is not Obama's fault here. (Is it rational to think a president >who has been in office less than 10 months to have resolved 2 wars that have been ongoing long before he arrived on the scene?). He's >thoughtful and pragmatic and is not going to make a rushed decision unlike those who got us into these wars in the first place. Do you >really think he wants innocents to be harmed? There is a lot to do and it is a very difficult situation as you must/should know. If he was >to pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and both were to fall into complete chaos, citizens attacked and killed, growth of >destabilization in the region and terrorist attacks hit any if not many countries then would that be reason enough for you to deem him >worthy of the NPP? Or would you prefer that he do everything he can to work this through?

Not whom he as inspired, there are many people, from Michael Jackson to Malcolm X who have inspired just as many, if not more people.

But what has the man done?

>The man has done what the committee says is their criteria. Most notably; The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of >and work for a world without nuclear weapons.


Has he brokered any peace deals? No.
>This is not a requirement to receive the award. He has used diplomacy to get nations talking which could lead to/inspire peace deals.


Has he stopped any wars? No.
>He's been in office less than 10 months. He is still "in progress" and has outlined his "best laid plans" thus far.


Has he freed a subject people? No.
>With this reasoning, did Bush free a subject people when he toppled Saddam?


Has he led any sort of mass uprising other than that of a mundane political campaign? No.
>Who's being snarky now? That was not a mundane political campaign. I would say that having the support of many from around the world could >be viewed as a "mass uprising"...but then again...context is everything and nothing depending on what you want to buy into.

Frankly, when you come down to it, Obama has done nothing concrete, none of the the accomplishments of past Nobel winners.

>Again, refer to the requirements of the committee and not your own requirements.

Rather, he has expanded an illegal, immoral war, certainly not the actions of a so called man of peace.
>Please elaborate and give us your reasons for your statement.


>Iraq -
>Summary....after consulting with military heads, he will withdraw all but 35 to 50 thousand troops by 8/31/2010. Then he will withdraw the >remaining troops by the end of 2011 according to the "Bush Administration" Status of Forces Agreement along with the Iraqi government.
>Please refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Responsibly-Ending-the-War-in-Iraq/
>for details.

>"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, >North Carolina.
>"By any measure, this has already been a long war," Obama said. It is time to "bring our troops home with the honor they have earned."


>Afghanistan -
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/

>It seems that this is now being reviewed again. I for one, will give our President credit for not being over impulsive.


Sorry, but a Nobel laureate, that just rings hollow.

>"Dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel, who established the prizes in his 1895 will that said the Peace Prize is for someone who "shall have done >the most or best work for fraternity between nations."

>It doesn't say anything about results. It's about effort. And, though a work in progress, Obama has made a bold effort to reposition the >U.S. among the family of nations."

Look at the greatest page.