Fairly odd. .. Remember when they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected? How did that turn out? Fairly odd Remember when they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected? How did that turn out?
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (214)
[ 214 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
80 comments displayed.
#10 - I Am Monkey
Reply +200
(09/05/2013) [-]
Remember when they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize just for getting elected?
How did that turn out?
#20 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
they gave him the nobel peace prize for opening communications between enemies AND ALLIES that bush had cut off. you never stop working or hell even talking with allies. So by opening communications he was promoting that a general peace could be achieved.

#23 to #20 - commontroll
Reply +4
(09/05/2013) [-]
********. He wasn't inaugurated yet. He was seriously given one just for being elected.
#22 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Y'all bitches don't seem to understand how this works, so I'll dumb it down.

Basically, everyone agrees not to use chemical weapons because they hurt more civilians than soldiers.

If America does nothing, then it encourages more armies to use chemical weapons because Syria got away with it.

Sending a few warning bombs was the only thing he could do.
#107 to #22 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
I wouldn't have a problem with it if Russia wasn't ready to blow us up for it. =/
#37 to #22 - endospore
Reply -1
(09/05/2013) [-]
No one is arguing that chemical weapons are good. Quite a few people even believe that Obama is justified and doing the right thing in bombing Syria.

What we're arguing here is that he doesn't deserve the peace prize.
#44 to #37 - kingoflint
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Even Obama didn't really think he deserved it. I mean, he accepted it cause what else is he gonna do? He did say when he accepted it that he did not feel like he'd earned it
#62 to #44 - Fgner
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
He could have easily said, "I refuse this prize".
#25 to #10 - thornberry
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
He pretty much was forced

Chemical warfare is deemed illegal by the UN... if the US ignored that then it would send a message to other countries that they can use chemical weapons and suffer no repercussions. It just makes the US look like the bad guy since almost every other country in the UN is too much of a pussy (big surprise) to do anything about it. Since the United States is the leader of the free world everyone is looking to us to solve the problem.

Long story short, he pretty much had no choice to do this. He was backed into a corner.
#26 to #25 - captainwow
Reply +11
(09/05/2013) [-]
So, get involved and it's "OMG STOP POLICING THE WORLD FAT MURICANS"

Do nothing and it's "GET OFF YOUR FAT ASS FAT MURICANS DO SOMETHING"

Also, it's mainly because Obama said he'd get involved if Syria DID use chemical weapons. he was banking on the threat being enough but it wasn't.
#95 to #26 - riddari
Reply +3
(09/05/2013) [-]
Too bad it is yet to be proven that it was the Syrian government that used those chemical weapons.
#208 to #95 - thornberry
Reply 0
(09/06/2013) [-]
I know, i mean i dont agree with going to war over it but I see why he felt that he had
#213 to #208 - riddari
Reply 0
(09/06/2013) [-]
Well, good sir, but if you don't know who used the chemical weapons, why would you wage the war against the government by default?

I mean, they have the upper hand against the islamic extremist rebels so far, why would they do something that would bring an international uproar upon them?

Besides, you might say the US is actively working against the UN investigators. Why does he want to wage this war so bad? Even against the will of the congress?

There have been reports of US working against UN investigators that are considering the chemical weapon use there.

I don't like dictatorships, mind you, but I'd say it's better than letting theocracy rule. It'd be the cruelest form of government. If there needs to be an intervention, they have to let the UN investigators do their job and analise the case. THEN it's okay to act, depending on the investigation outcome.

One of the sources: www.infowars.com/us-attempts-to-sabotage-un-chemical-weapons-investigation/
#122 to #26 - unlucki
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Not the hero the world deserves but the hero it needs
#51 to #25 - rubydude
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Plus, some of the congressmen have stated they believe Syria will become the new Afghanistan in that it will begin to harbor terrorist groups. They started with bullets, then chemical weapons. What's gonna be next if nobody intervenes?
#57 to #51 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Except Assad's opposition is tied to Al Qaeda, it's already Afghanistan dude. You're just shifting chemicals from someone who is ambivalent to the US, to people who want to wipe us and our allies of the ******* map.
#34 to #25 - PhoenixComics
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
why is no one considering that it would have been the rebels? :/
#28 to #25 - defender
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Let other countries deal with it
#30 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Considering he was given the prize simply for not being global pariah George Bush and he's still not George Bush, it turned out perfectly.
#121 to #10 - kosmic
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
#145 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
He's respecting the geneva convention
#38 to #10 - endospore
Reply +16
(09/05/2013) [-]
The peace prize is kind of a joke. Gandhi never won one. Ever hear of Irena Sendler? Of course you didn't because she didn't win the peace prize even though she helped thousands of holocaust victims. She died in obscurity just a couple years ago. Al Gore won the prize for a slideshow about global warming the year she was nominated.

Andhere's a source for Irena: www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp
#217 to #38 - anon
Reply 0
(09/11/2013) [-]
Don't forget that Gilbert Lewis never got a Chemistry Prize and John Steinbeck got a Literature Prize for parroting the Communist Manifes
#74 to #38 - admiralen
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
implying helping holocaust victims have anything to do with peace, she shouldve been nominated for humanitarian or something like that
#188 to #74 - hydraetis
Reply +2
(09/05/2013) [-]
implying a slideshow about climate change has anything to do with peace
#214 to #188 - admiralen
Reply 0
(09/06/2013) [-]
yeah i dont really get peace prizes in general, peace is a fickle thing, you can have peace in a dictatorship, and in that case gandhi fought peace and such, its not an easy cathegory and i dont think Al Gore deserved one
#40 to #38 - kafudamapla
Reply -10
(09/05/2013) [-]
I think everyone's heard of her after that FJ post about, don't pretend you're some insightful guy that cares about this ****
#43 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
You sound like a ******* hipster.
#204 to #43 - kafudamapla
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Oh **** off
#42 to #40 - endospore
Reply -1
(09/05/2013) [-]
I'm not pretending to be insightful. If you look closely, that's a snopes like I posted, which isn't the classiest of sites in the world. I'm just citing further evidence for the peace prize being worthless these days.
#15 to #10 - prvcowboy
Reply +19
(09/05/2013) [-]
They should give him another one.
#39 - emostrawberry
Reply +79
(09/05/2013) [-]
#52 to #39 - gragasvlad
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
that would be awesome! He would be the first black president and the first black man to work for the goverment
#55 to #52 - gragasvlad
Reply -1
(09/05/2013) [-]
also I hate emoticons
#170 to #39 - jeremyneverdieone
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
What if Joe Biden was Vice President?
#13 - pappathethird
Reply +77
(09/05/2013) [-]
All hail obabo
#21 - howaboutnsfw
Reply +28
(09/05/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#33 - jukuku
Reply +16
(09/05/2013) [-]
George Bush's 4th term sure isn't going well
#50 - gragasvlad
Reply +11
(09/05/2013) [-]
I say let Syria destroy Syria.
#140 to #50 - ohnotwoone
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
An excellent morally bankrupt comment.
#143 to #140 - gragasvlad
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
it's the internet! we don't need morals here.
#118 - swagloon
Reply +8
(09/05/2013) [-]
Why can't someone else deal with Syria? Or better yet why not let Syria deal with Syria?
#125 to #118 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
America is the world police. Not joking. They're supposed to keep the world in "check".
#127 to #125 - swagloon
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
But why?
They do something everyone hates them.
They do nothing everyone hates them.

Can't England do something? They have the power don't they?
#132 to #127 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
Those outcomes are very true, but, it's their job so either way you look at it, not everyone will like you in the end. I don't know if England has the power to do any thing about it, but, I doubt that they do though.
#134 to #132 - bangala
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#190 to #132 - steedawwg **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Well, we would have the power to something, but Parliament (the Labour party) had a hissy fit and said no. So we aren't intervening just yet. (I say 'we' as in England)
#128 to #118 - gammajk
Reply +2
(09/05/2013) [-]
Because Obama said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a red line and would have to be dealt with, and chemical weapons were used.
#129 to #128 - swagloon
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
Right under the UN chemical weapons are banned; this has to be a united effort between the nations, not just America.
#131 to #129 - gammajk
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, and the UN is a ******* joke. Obama actually stated outright that if ASSAD uses chemical weapons, not just a vague "if anyone uses them" but "i'm ******* warning you right now assad", then action would have to be taken against him.
#136 to #131 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
So let obama go to war by himself 91% of Americans don't want this ****.
#141 to #136 - gammajk
Reply +1
(09/05/2013) [-]
No no, I'm not calling for war in Syria just yet, because Obama hasn't actually proven that Assad used the weapons. We know they were used, but Obama keeps referring to his sooper-secret documents proving Assad used them and refuses to tell the public what this proof is. Sound familiar? It's Bush back in 2003.
#144 to #141 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
The information was even collected by the same organizations that said there were WMD's in Iraq.
#150 to #128 - roliga
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
And then turns around a week later saying he didn't set a red line
#154 to #118 - appleboom
Reply +3
(09/05/2013) [-]
It is against international law to use chemical weapons. If no one enforces those laws, they are pointless. The UN is locked due to China and Russia preventing any action, so the laws must be enforced by a third party. The US and France have decided to be that third party, as no one else is.
#162 to #154 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
We continued funding Saddam after he used Mustard gas on the Kurds, the US doesn't give a single **** about international law, this is about Israel.
#198 to #162 - appleboom
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
You mean Iran. You're also forgetting, though, this is Obama, not Bush.
#201 to #198 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
And Obama is basically a carbon copy of bush, this isn't something that deviates from president to president, we're Israel's bitch, and we're only going to war with someone if they're a threat to Israel or we can get some money.
#151 - roliga
Reply +7
(09/05/2013) [-]
#172 to #151 - yuukoku
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
It's sad that Democrats make the Republican party out to be inbred rednecks and unintelligent warmongers. I feel sorry for them.

Now Obama wants to start another war before he's even finished up pulling troops from Afghanistan like he said that he would.
#66 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply +5
(09/05/2013) [-]
you do realize that hes not trying to start a war, or take anything, or relive the Iraq fiasco?
he is trying to enforce international laws against the use of chemical weapons.
if people can just use chemical weapons freely without having some kind of retaliation, then other countries will begin to use it, as much as they want. and chemical weapons are bad, mkay? too many civilian casualties with em, pain and suffering as you bleed out of all of your orifices, etc.

not to mention the bombing isnt going to turn the tide of the war, nor is it meant to do so, its just a slap on the wrist.
and hes within his rights as president to make this call without congress because he is not putting boots on the ground.

im reading these comments and im just sorta surprised that none of you seem to understand why he's even doing this
#69 to #66 - reginleif ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Even if it were international law, it isn't our place to enforce it, and it isn't our responsibility either.

Every one "concerned" with Syria ought to fund, and fight the war themselves instead of trying to force others to act in something they clearly want no part of.
#76 to #69 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
its not about syria, assad, the rebels, or anyone specific. its about the use of chemical weapons, and the fact that they shouldnt be used.

however, you're right, why should the US do it? why doesnt someone else step in?
so, say we sat back and did nothing. who would intervene? what if nobody did? then the use of chemical weapons will continue to be used and the idea of regulations in warfare go out the window. and that would be a step backwards for all of humankind, if you ask me.
#92 to #76 - reginleif ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
We set back and do nothing, Assad wins , rebels either die (and killing ends) or continue to be killed. US wastes 0 lives and 0$

End result: Killing or the possibility of Despotic rule.

We intervene, Assad loses, rebels win bringing with them their Islamist brand of politics oppressing the people, people complain and die. US wastes Billions of dollars and a large amount of US lives. Despotic rule.

End result, Chaos, Killing and Despotic rule by Islamists.

There aren't "good guys" in this conflict, and it's not like we don't have a precedence ignoring Human Right's violations.

BTW sometimes intervening has negative effects that can be considered worse than the disease..... our intervention with the no fly zone in Libya extended an already bloody civil war that was about to END before we intervened, the Libyan conflict along with the Egyptian overthrow of Mubarek showed us that sometimes a despot is the only thing standing between their country and bloodthirsty Islamists.

I'm not saying Assad is good, or that I approve of his methods, by all means he's a monster..... I'm saying that so is the opposition and that to put our resources and lives on the line for one monster as opposed to another isn't the moral thing to do.
#101 to #92 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
also, did you name your profile after Ephraim's spear?
#126 to #101 - reginleif ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
**** yes, that spear is the business. :/
#167 to #126 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
atleast we can agree on something
#99 to #92 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
you arent reading what i said. this is about cruise missile strikes. while that costs some money, there wouldnt be any american casualties.
and i also said that its a slap on the wrist, and that the strikes are not going to be great enough to turn the tide of the war.
you are completely right about there being no good side here, i was just explaining that to someone else. US doesnt want to be caught supporting either side. its not about the war, its about trying to temper the use of chemical weapons.
#73 to #66 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Syria is breaking international law meaning Syria should be punished by the international community. Secondly, if Assad falls the rebels take over, rebels might I add with ties to Al Qaeda, so unless you're advocating handing over the keys to chemical weapons to known terrorists overthrowing Assad is going to cause trouble.

And no, if congress says no and he still strikes Syria that is illegal period, it doesn't matter if boots go on the ground or not.
#81 to #73 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply +2
(09/05/2013) [-]
unfortunately, there is no "good" side in that war. Thats why the US isnt supporting either side. the strikes are not related to the war itself, its not supposed to show support to rebels, its supposed to temper the use of chemical weapons. didnt you see what i said?
But you are right. the international community SHOULD handle it. but when they dont, what do you do? just let the use of chemical weapons continue? its a difficult call, if you ask me.
#85 to #81 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
It really doesn't matter what side is being formally supported, if you go in and completely destroy the Syrian military the rebels can just walk right in. Which would be putting chemical weapons in the hands of people we know for a fact would use them against us.
#94 to #85 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
they arent trying to wipe out the Syrian military. as i had said, its a slap on the wrist. it would take more then a few cruise missiles to turn the side of the war. or so Obama hopes, i suppose...
#98 to #94 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Yes, yes we are, and a "few cruise missiles" completely ****** over the Iraq military during Operation desert storm.
#100 to #98 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
yeah well, intention and result are often two different things, amirite?
#104 to #100 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
True, but we're responsible for the result, no matter our intentions.
#82 to #66 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Maybe he's doing it to not lose face after he said that ******* red line thing?
#97 to #82 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
That dumb ************ should start watching his mouth. Impulsive ******* idiot.
#14 - anon
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Can someone please explain this to me? Congress hasn't voted on it yet and Syria hasn't been bombed yet. At least I don't think so, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
#103 to #14 - danster
Reply 0
(09/05/2013) [-]
Well, a Youtuber I watch has some pretty good videos of the whole thing.

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told Egyptian Revolution: What You're Not Being told World War 3 Has Already Begun
#16 to #14 - walmartysghost **User deleted account**
Reply +5
(09/05/2013) [-]
you're right, he's just made a statement that says even if congress says no he wouldn't let that stop him from protecting national security. I think it's probably just getting blown out of proportion like these things always are.