Artful Dodger: Don't read anything with a "V:" at the beginning.

Czuch:   I noticed your absense.  You haven't missed much.  Don't read anything with a "V:" at the beginning.     Most of my posts are their usual par excellence.   So if you've read mine, you're caught up.  lol

BTW, I did a search on MSNBC regarding the Nobel PP and couldn't find anything except positive stories of support.  The net is crawling with negative stories on how stupid this is (giving the award to an undeserving recipient).   Even some prominent people are saying how bogus it is. 

Oh yeah, Fox covered both sides of the argument.  MSNBC only the supportive side for Obama, NBC pretty much the same, and CNN did a pretty good job of a balance.

And did you see where the White House has basically declared war on FOX?   That will so backfire on them.  What a bunch of dolts.  I can't wait to see Fox's ratings go up on this one.  Gotta give the WH credit:  They probably just booted Fox's viewership by the thousands.  Nice strategy. 

(V): BTW... any update for us on this side of the pond about those police blokes who murdered some poor innocent guy for no reason?????

Ferris Bueller: Speaking of SNL... I found it interesting the distinction between the news media coverage when Bush got satirized on SNL and when Obama gets the same.


I saw an NBC news coverage after Obama was satirized that felt the need to explain how inaccurate most of it was, and go into detail about what they felt was characterized...

Well, most of what SNL does is not a completely accurate portrayal, including when it was about Bush... but I NEVER saw any news do a story about how inaccurate they were about Bush, but they just couldnt help themselves trying to explain to the "stupid public" that what they heard on SNL was not all facts..... go figure????

Artful Dodger: Wow.... 336 new messages, I have been slacking lately.

Sorry if I dont read them all, and if I post something that has been already talked about.

I think that the Obama award was more the same as a special interest group paying off a politician for votes.... it was a group interested in peace trying to put Obama on the hot seat and get him to feel the need to become worthy of the award he received.

Artful Dodger: SNL.. yes, they remind me of "Spitting Image" ... just as Glen Beck reminds me of a certain Kenny Everett character... a certain American general who wants to bomb everything that's not 'apple pie'....

And if we are to move on from Bush... why is Beck quoting stuff Obama said 8+ years back, saying Obama wants to convert America to a Marxist state and kill 20% of Americans in the process??

tell me..... are some Republicans so thick as to take this guy seriously?

........... as to cell phones... why can't it be just a universal ban, at least on handheld as a start? I think your lawyers are promoting this rift in laws being set by the government that need to be.

Artful Dodger: it has been law in australia for years as well and what do you see everyday??? people using phones while driving...
The hardest thing to do in heavy traffic is to pull over to answer a phone and it has been found that less than 2% of people use their phone (hand -held) while driving.

I'm surprised at the 2% as you see it happening all the time....young girls seem to be the worst, with tradies a good second.

Übergeek 바둑이: The Lissabon Treaty violates also national laws. It can't be said it leads to adaptions of laws, this is violence.

gogul

Here is a quote about Guantanamo which I found interesting:

"After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, which brought Fidel Castro to power, then-President Dwight Eisenhower insisted the status of the base remained unchanged, despite Cuban objections.

In 1934 the Avery Porko treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and its trading partners free access through the bay; modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars; and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it, or the U.S. abandoned the base property.  Since the Cuban Revolution, the government under Fidel Castro has cashed only one of the rent checks from the U.S. government, and only because of "confusion" in 1959 in the heady early days of the leftist revolution, according to Castro. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (a title that ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer.  The United States argues that the cashing of the single check signifies Havana's ratification of the lease — and that ratification by the new government renders moot any questions about violations of sovereignty and illegal military occupation.  It is countered, however, that the 1903 and 1934 lease agreements were imposed on Cuba under duress and are unequal treaties, no longer compatible with modern international law, and voidable ex nunc pursuant to articles 60, 62, and 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  However, Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prohibits retroactive application of said Convention to already existing treaties, such as the ones concluded between the US and Cuba in 1903 and 1934."

Imagine that, the US occupies Guantanamo Bay for $4,085 per year, under a treaty signed under duress over 100 years ago.  The Us has been lucky that Cuba has few allies in the security council at the UN.  Well, at some point the US will have to give up that land.

The real problem today is the relocation of the prisoners.  They cannot be brought to American soil because if they did that the prisoners would be entitled to due process under the law.  In order to close the Gitmo detainment camp the Obama administration has to find a place to put those prisoners.  Many countries have asked the prisoners to be repatriated, but the American government refuses to that because in other countries those prisoners would be given due process under the law and the press would have access to them.  Those prisoners could disclose conditions at the camp.

People don't directly realize this but the Obama administration declassified many of the documents describing torture and abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo.  I think the rationale is that if the US government comes clean now then nobody will be surprised when those prisoners are released and talk about their experiences.

Well, it is likely that the Guatanamo detention camp will close next year, if not by the end of this year.  The military base itself will never close because it is strategically too importat.  Cubans will have to continue living next to an American military base that the US got from the first Cuban president, a president that Theordore Roosevelt imposed on the Island.

Übergeek 바둑이:   I'm not blaming Obama.  I'm just saying that the award is bogus.  Anyone celebrating his winning are not thinking clearly.   Many, like me, are simply pointing out that for an award to hold true meaning, it ought to be truly deserved and based on actual merit. 

Artful Dodger:

>  One Obama offical said that the award is an acknowledgement of Obama's
likely accomplishments.
>  In other words, Obama has done nothing to
deserve this award, but it's likely he will deserve it in the future.

I think we have to remember that President Obama did not ask for the award and he himself said that he had done nothing to deserve it.  If we are going to put blame, we should do it on the people who nominated him, and the committee that awarded it.  Those people did a diservice to the president and put him in a position in which people blame him for doing nothing.  Those that support the president are trying to excuse or justify the prize but in reality all that the Nobel committee did is make things harder for the president.  Now everyone expects him to do something to deserve the prize, and considering what he is facing it is not likely that things will go on his favor.  He faces opposition both at home and abroad.  It is unlikely that the Republican opposition will accept major reductions in the nuclear arsenal.  Israel will continue building settlements and oppressing Palestinians.  Hamaz and Hezbollah will continue to carry out attacks against Israel.  Afghanistan will continue being a nightmare zone run by extremists.  Iraq will continue to be torn by sectarian violence and hatred of the US.  Iran and North Korea are not going to give up their nuclear ambitions.  It will go on and on because those bent on doing harm enjoy war and killing.  The president is only one man against an unreasonable world.  He should never have had to inherit Iraq, yet he did.  It is why Republicans were quite willing to lose the election, because they knew that whoever was elected would have to deal with all the crap.  Now the Nobel committee wants Obama to fix it all and gives him the prize, not hoping that he will suceed, but hoping to put more pressure on him.

(V):  It's coming. 

• Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers: 6 states
  (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington),
  the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving.
  
  • With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place.
  
  
  

Ferris Bueller:  Not maybe it was premature, it WAS premature.  What could he possibly have done his first 12 days in office to even merit a nomination?

A huge majority of people share my position on this matter.  It's a farce.  It makes about as much sense as giving Hitler a Humanitarian of the Year award.   An award is only meaningful if it's actually deserved.

(V):McCain is just making a political statement.  If he really believes that we ought to celebrate when an undeserved award is given, he's an idiot.  SNL got it right.

gogul: ... well they tried to tell us to drop our lbs... that failed, the Euro was supposed to take over from the pound.. that failed.

It'll only be black if we let them make it black. And quite frankly.. I doubt if that'll happen.

The Tories here want to put the Lisbon upto a referendum, and at the moment our MP's are still suffering from the expenses scandal.

As for Militarisation... is that in place of NATO? No army will go against it's population if we go by the UK's army's heads and their speaking out against our gov re Afghanistan.

Quite frankly, this sounds like another 2K bug!!

The 12th of June was the last time I heard something about guantanamo. And it obviously was fake news.

This is why I have problems with all this blah blah about change (without as I wouldn't respect the will to change and step back of irresponsable pretensions). The reality is something comletely different.

Europe's problems with the EU are growing. What is the Lissabon treaty the Irish voted about without that there would have been a real discussion about? It is the militarisation of the EU, the demontage of the Irish neutrality, it's the obligation to invest more in the weapon industry, it allows military force over it's own population. The power will get centralsed in favor of France, Germany and GB. This new treaty will strengthen the repression agains the population, even the Frontex organisation gets immovable with this treaty. Also, this treaty will dump wages with it's perverted domestic marcet rules. Last point I mention, the need of reforms in the finance sector all are talking about, lots of possibilities discussed now will simply be forbidden with this treaty. Good luck in oposing against the ugly figures ruling Europe. I see very black for the future of the EU, resp. a life under the moloch EU. It's all about money for a perverted high society.

Artful Dodger:  The SNL skit was funny.  Maybe it was a year premature, but he won the award; so, GET OVER IT.

But to more important matters....

When is it going to made law that it is illegal to use a mobile phone in the USA whilst driving? Something that over here in the UK has been illegal for some time.

Artful Dodger: shorter then the the pro Bush's blamed Clinton I guess, depends on how long the far righters keep moaning that there isn't a Republican President.

McCain.. says.. "....As Americans we're proud when our President receives a reward..."

Artful Dodger:Let me assure you the "I inherited a mess" card will go on for years....we had that happen over here...

thankfully australia seems to be on the up and up.

they seem to think we are nearly thru and done with the recession or whatever they want to call it.

Artful Dodger:  I don't mind him getting  the award but it would have been nice to see that he actually did something for it.  It's just another example of how meaningless this President is.  Things are not good here and all he seems to do is blame Bush.  I wonder how long he'll play that "I inherited a mess" card?

Artful Dodger: the people are of the same opinion over here....completely unwarranted, and as you said they must think people are stupid.

Bernice:   There's another  skit where they lampooned the news and announced the "premature" awarding of the Heisman Trophy to a high schooler, the Miss America Pagent winner to a 5th grader.  lol

One Obama offical said that the award is an acknowledgement of Obama's likely accomplishments.   In other words, Obama has done nothing to deserve this award, but it's likely he will deserve it in the future.

They must think the average person is stupid.  about 85% of those polled say Obama did nothing to deserve such an award.  Worse is that he was only in office 12 days when he was nominated.  Idiots.

Artful Dodger:

Übergeek 바둑이: yes,, believe you me , certain moneymakers(george soros) would sell and buy from invading aliens bent on destroying the earth,, but lend lease started early, the Americans were not fence sitting... and maybe English and especially the French should not have insisted on harsh Treaty of Versailles provisions.. by the way how much money do you think building the Maginot line cost?? gee... why did they build it??? sarcasm here

GTCharlie:

>  I  see no mention of  those evil Americans actually helping the Soviets

I think it was not a matter of good or evil in the the sense of the US doing wrong on purpose.  The American govenment at the time was not sure of how to commit to the war.  It took the attack on Pearl Harbor to move the American government to stop turning a blind eye to those who traded with the enemy.  Those who helped Hitler (in the US, England and France) acted because they thought that Hitler was doing a good thing in destroying the Soviet Union.  By the winter of 1941 Hitler's eastern front was falling apart and as it became obvious that he would fail then those that supported him started withdrawing their support and losing their power base.  Notice that the Lend-Lease agreement came into effect in 1941, and the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.  1941 was the key year.  It crystallized full American commitment to the Alies.

American help was essential in helping the Soviet Union to stop Hitler.  The Soviets lost between 19 and 23 million citizens, and nearly 2/3 of their industrial production.  Perhaps Hitler would have failed sooner and killed a lot less people without the help of those that supported his war machine, particularly Sweden.  Sweden, a country that declared itself neutral, sustained that war machine by providing it with the steel to manufacture tanks, battleships and other war machinery.

Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, and divided Poland and Czechoslovakia.  They did it to stall for time because neither one of them was ready for war.  However, they both knew that war was unavoidable.  Of course, those that traded with them and sold them weapons and materials made a lot of money.  War is like that.  Those that supply the armies make the money.  The real victims were the Czech, Slovak and Polish civilians who died as Hitler and Stalin sent their armies to divide those countries and make "buffer zones" out of them.

But its all ancient history now

Artful Dodger:of course the Soviets had no problem with Hitler when it came to making deals to split Poland though, and of course silly Finland didn't want to stay !! poor communists!  no one can be trusted  no wonder they forcibly replaced free Poland and Czech governments after the war

Übergeek 바둑이:  Your fourth interpretation does seem the most plausible, considering what else we know of history and how governments often encourage one government over another to keep the lessor one in check.  But that interpretation still validates my point.  Such approaches never fully work in the long run.  They are the wimpy way out.  And there were many signs that such an approach to Germany was akin to letting a tiger out of its cage.

As for Chamberlin, he clearly was weak in his approach to Hitler.  When a country such as Germany, makes a promise and then breaks it, then makes another and breaks that one too, it's not rocket science to figure out that there's a fox in the hen house.  

As for: "They appeased Hitler because they hated communists more than they hated Nazis.  It was a simple as that."

Nothing in world politics is ever simple. 

Übergeek 바둑이:I  see no mention of  those evil Americans actually helping the Soviets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease  note the paragraph titled "Significance"

Übergeek 바둑이: I've heard little snippets on the subject, but nothing to this scale. I find it scandalous that USA companies (as it is true) were trading with and supporting Hitler while Europe was either taken over or fighting the German war machine. I find it even more disgusting that even after the 1941 attack on Pearl harbour that USA companies are still trading with Hitler and that an act has to be made to stop trading with enemies!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Provides a good read.

The UK had nothing to stop Hitler... the only thing that protected us was Hitler's love of England. If he'd ordered an invasion of the UK after Dunkirk... nothing could have stopped him, we were lucky for what is referred to as the "phoney war" and radar. N' that the German war machine sought to rid us of air power first.

Artful Dodger:

> Hitler could have been stopped early if the governments weren't so wimpy about war.

There are three interpretations of the appeasement policy that Neville Chamberlain followed prior to the war.  For those who don't know much about it, here is a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

One interpretation is like yours.  Neville Chamberlain was weak and he should have declared war immediately.

The second interpretation is that Neville Chamberlain thought that Hitler was not big a threat and appeasing him would simply make him give up his imperialistic ambitions because Poland and Czechoslovakia were more than enough land for the Third Reich to expand.

The third interpretation is more realistic.  England had to make war preparations prior to engaging Hitler's Third Reich.  Since England, France and the US were not ready for war, they were stalling for time and giving Hitler Czechoslovakia and Poland meant that they could prepare prior to entering a full scale war.

All of these three interpretations have validity to some extent.

There is a fourth interpretation, and the one I believe.  Hitler was given control of Poland and Czechoslovakia because Hitler was promising to do the one thing that all the western superpowers wanted.  England and France traded economically with Germany until the start of the war, and the US traded with Hitler until 1942 when the Trading with the Enemy Act was enforced.  Until then, America's most powerful families were doing business with Germany and the American government never talks about this.  What is it that Hitler was going to do?  What was Hitler going to accomplish?  Hitler was promising to destroy the Soviet Union and all western superpowers wanted that.  It is why Americans traded with Hitler until 1942.  It is why New York was the main banking conduit for the Nazis and why Switzerland and Sweden were some of the main industrial suppliers of the Third Reich.  Specially Sweden, which provided about 50% of Germany's steel during the war.  They appeased Hitler because they hated communists more than they hated Nazis.  It was a simple as that.

This interpretation is never talked about in history books because it would imply that the Allies actually wanted Hitler to succeed.  In this interpretation western superpowers are not heroic defenders of freedom, but accomplices in war crimes that left as many as 23 million soviets dead.  Nobody likes this interpretation, so nobody talks about it.

Artful Dodger: So... you are saying that if the USA had gottened involved before 1941 we'd won the war quicker? And if you knew history, you'd know that no European government could stop Hitler, none had the military forces to stop him. That's basic history and I'm surprised you do not know that. Even Russia only stopped Hitler through it's generals January and February.. a well known fact here. I guess USA teaching is not as good regarding WWII.. that's something you need to address.

"I've noticed that when your arguments are weak, you always resort to claiming things that were never said."

I never said it was said, I was asking if you accepted such a statement.. most sane people do see a question.

as for brute force... Ghandi beat the British Empire by non violent protest.. In certain respects.. wasn't that Christ's message. Or did you miss that part???

Yes.. I asked a question!!

Bwild:It's a Chinese proverb.  Here's Proverbs 26: 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
       or you will be like him yourself.

who was it that said,"only a fool argues with a fool?"

(V): I've noticed that when your arguments are weak, you always resort to claiming things that were never said.  Better would be to form that statement into a question.  And try to avoid leading questions.  Those are easy to spot as well.

(V):  Chamberlin was a fool and history has proven that.  He took the wimpy way out.  History has shown over and over that when it comes to thugs, diplomacy doesn't work.  Show us where it has.  But brute force does work.  Germany was toppled that way as was Japan.  Hitler could have been stopped early if the governments weren't so wimpy about war. 

Artful Dodger: So... you recognise that the troops needed to free Afghanistan from the Taliban are needed, the Iraq war diverted needed resources from the fight to destroy the Taliban.

btw.. Butterfly's eating pizza.. which sci-fi B movie did that come from. Sounds like an old story from 2000AD

Artful Dodger: Chamberlain didn't sign over the UK to the Nazi's... whoever made that comment is deranged. He sought to overt a conflict with Germany, seeing as at that time we were not ready for a war. It didn't work.

Is the teaching of European history of that time so bad in the USA. or is the comment maker so off the mark his head is in another galaxy??

Point to me is ,"international diplomaty", "new climate of international politics", "vision of a world without nuclear weapons(pfff)", that's the megalomanic sphere, I don't have anything to do with it, it doesn't help me, interest me bother me, it's a message from a distant world of puffed-up peeps who have no idea what's going on. That's the world of the supranational solutions, I don't feel anybit at home when I think about change among the megalomaniacs. I think among these figures, Obama deserves the price. For the emotianal boost of the show lol.

Bwild:I heard that !  lol

Artful Dodger: that warhead contained yomama's birth certificate!

GTCharlie:  We need Regan again.

Artful Dodger: I mean all he has to do is make a few " feelgood" speeches and he's a lock! by the way,, I like when the USA acts rogue for the most part.

GTCharlie:  Yeah.  And get this.  Right after the award was announced, the US made a preemptive strike against the MOON!!!!  Well, the award was for international peace and not interstellar. 

I'm nominating my 7 year son for the next one.. who can deny him after this???, and I'm the charity for the prize