Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Skybird]

I am not willing to accept

- conspirating with and supporting the nation's enemies (Irangate),

- criminally abusing one' own nation's citizen to win elections (getting a deal with Iran not to release the hsotages before Carter lost the elections so that he cannot get a boost from his efforts to get them freed, fact is Carter still was trying and was hanging on the telepohone the very moment the media announced his defeat, there is even video footage of him in that situation),

- attacking one's own nation's people by drug crime in order to give foreign rightwinged militias in honduras an income by which they can pay the weapons one is delivering them, for that corrupting one's own nation'S policework,

as regular policy.

Reagan was a blender par excellence, a rethorically skilled speaker, and his presidency was the role of his life. but it was just a role he masterfully played, a screenplay character that depicts everything what Americans seem to think being american is about, he had not really the integrity that he claimed to talk of. And that's pretty much all about him. His public perception is not about what he did in failures and crimes and achievements, but about a nation that already was satisfied to be made wallowing in sentimental moods and memories of the of good old times.

[Aramike]

The first part of your post is more than a bit "tin-hatted" so I'm going to skip it completely.

Reagan and his policies were far more effective and influential than you're giving him credit for. He was definitely more than just an empty (but persuasive) suit.

Reagan understood the one thing that Carter never could grasp - peace can only be achieved at gunpoint and with strength. Okay, fine, I'll give Carter the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he believed far too much into some inherent "goodness" of people. But I will hardly admire the hopelessly naive.

It's a very simple world we live in, really. Reagan got it right. He knew that not everyone shared the same sense of morality therefore he strived to achieve a position where, if necessary, his nation would be able to impose such morality upon others. That position became the ultimate deterrant.

On the domestic front, Reagan was really the first president of the 20th century to understand the full impact of supply-side economics. His tax policies literally propelled a country into nearly out-of-control growth.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with everything Reagan did. But it is hard to dispute the positive impact of his policies. On the other hand, Carter's policies regularly led to an entrenchment of recession and international blunder - despite how well-intentioned he may have been.

[Skybird]

That's no tin-hatted, but documented facts.

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented.

That the Irangate scandal could have happened without knowledge and at least silent agreement by the White House, is a naive assumption. North was just a pawn sacrifice to protect the White House's higher ranks that were responsible.

And on the drug business of the CIA to help the contras paying their weapons:

Originally Posted by Trapped in the Afghan Maze

In the late 70s, the CIA had it’s hand’s in drugs, like it had in other parts of the world as well: in order to raise financial funds that it needed for it’s hidden operations somewhere else, and that it does not want the public to know about, so they better should not be listed in any balances checked by political control committees. According activities with regard to Middle America and the Contras are well-known by now, and the drugs being smuggled into the US by the Contras to use the profits for buying weapons – all this with help and assistance by the CIA that even hindered law enforcement by federal authorities and made local police accepting drug distribution - certainly were not the only source of incomes of this agency.

the result was a flooding of especially the West Coast and the black slums with cocaine and heroin delivered in the end by the Contras, with police investigations hitting a total low in activity. the weapon companies delivering the Contras their weapons got payed with these profits and thus directly profiteered from state-assisted intensification of drug-consummation and drug crimes (including gang wars), and the number of drug addicts and deaths went up.

I recommended before and recommend again the careful study of this book: "Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion" by Pulitier-winning (for reporting on a natural desaster) journalist Gary Webb, who then got killed in mysterious circumstances: the coroner rated the two shots to his head as suicde - but TWO shots? Maybe he had two heads, who knows.

I also (again) recommend a more academic work by Prof. A.W. McCoy, "The Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the golobal drug trade", but I admit it is a bit difficult a lecture. It meanwhile got released in German, too, three years ago, I think - short after I finished the difficult English book.

----

Just because you do not like dark business being mentioned and prefer to ignore it - that alone does not make reminding of it a conspiration theory.

[Aramike]

That's no tin-hatted, but documented facts.

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented.

Please cite credible sources on that. I can't find a single thing during a quick Google search to back that up.

Edit: Upon further review, I can only find "tin-hatted" sources making this claim. Pretty much every reputable source I can find seems to attribute the release to the same thing I've always believe - a stick it to Carter/fear of Reagan ideal.

Another Edit: Here's the Wiki of the so-called October Surprise Conspiracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy

Not surprising I missed it - I tend to dismiss such theories out of hand - rightly so. It seems as though every credible source out there dismisses this as a tin-hatted theory.

[Skybird]

Strange that I read about it repeatedly over the years. Also, on both issues there have been several full length documentaries on TV, of German and international making.

It's not as if internet links are the decisive criterion whether or not something can be true or not. there has been a world (and books and papers and media) before the internet, I seem to remember.

The 45 or 60 hour documentary that I also remember, on Carter's final days, very likely was american-made, since the original tone was American English. In it Kissinger took a very critical stand on the Republican's activities during the campaign to defeat Carter. While he criticises Carter's policies, he attacked the Reagan camp sharply over the deal with the hostages.

Back then, years ago, I did not had it in web sources, and I simply do not take the effort to google it now. Knowing that I had what I claim in the above from several sources in books and TV, sometimes newspaper essays, is good enough for me to stick to it and not abandoning it just becasue I have no links.

20 years ago or so many people used to think that as long as it was not on TV, it was not real, and if it was on TV, it must be true. Today, people think the same way, but nor regarding TV, but the internet, and "links".

Web links are not everything, and many debates just worsen to "link wars".

However.

I can't find a single thing during a quick Google search

[SteamWake]

I interrupt the skybird aaramike tribesman show to bring you this article. Which in my opinion nails it.

In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

and

But Bobby Muller, who won the Nobel Prize as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, told The Times: "I don't have the highest regard for the thinking or process of the Nobel committee. Maybe Norway should give it to Sweden so they can more properly handle the Peace Prize along with all the other Nobel prizes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6868905.ece

[MR. Wood]

That reagan's camp and the Republicans negoitiated adeal with Teheran not to release the hostages before Reagan got elected, is long since known now. Must not be commented

You are right sir Reagan made it know to Iran that as soon as he is sworn in that the bombs would rain down untill they were released

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MR. Wood

You are right sir Reagan made it know to Iran that as soon as he is sworn in that the bombs would rain down untill they were released

According to the first Iranian president after the revolution, Bani-Sadr, the Republicans approached him with an offer to arrange a favourable deal for Iran (who later got delivered fighterbombers via Israel - gotta love history's irony), pointing out that they had the influence inside the CIA to change the activities of the CIA in Iran for the better or worse, and at the same time made clear their threat to assassinate him personally if Iran would not play ball to delay the release of the hostage until Reagan had won for sure. Parts of the Iranian government were sympathetic to the idea anyway, since Carter for them was a hate-figure with whom they thought to have some business to settle after Carter willed the armed rescue attempt that unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, failed.

the whole "october surprise" story is controversial, one has to admit that, yes. However, it is not true that there is consistent, uniform evidence that it all is just conspiration theory, and that everybody dismissed it as nonsens. at least as many witnesses and directly affected parties - I would say: even more - claim directly - or by the details of their part in the whole story give strong indication - that it all is a true story indeed. Also, if considering the political realities that later formed up, it makes much more sense to assume the Republican conspiracy took place indeed.

The Senate Committee examining the accusations and coming to conclusions of that nothing had been proven, means not much if remembering that political multi-party committees wage positional wars against each other in such committees, turning them into a domestic party-warground. Political observers in Germany for example say that the past 6-8 years have seen a record high of examining committees of the Bundestag, but I cannot remember that any of these many committees ever came to a clear and useful conclusion. Party interests blocked each other effectively, enforcing a result so much watered down that everybody could read everything into it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.

[TDK1044]

The only thing that would now give the Nobel Peace Prize real credibility, would be to have it presented at the United Nations. That way, a meaningless and useless prize could be handed over at the home of the meaningless and useless.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

there has been a world (and books and papers and media) before the internet, I seem to remember.

LIE! There was no such thing!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Let me help unravel all the tin hat Reagan conspiracies here.

The Iranians were not sure who would win. If they gave up the hostages before the election, and Carter won, they had no bargaining chips and had lost leverage for no reason. If they didn't give up the hostages, and Carter won, then they still had a tool to use. If Reagan won, he had been making it clear that the hostages would be home, or ELSE. So the Iranians did the smart, sensible thing. They waited to see what happened.

Reagan won, they realized he wasn't bluffing, and said "ok here ya go, we are letting them go." Its just plain ole common sense. Something many seem to lose when they talk politics.

The hostages were released within hours after announcement of Reagan'S victory. You do not know much about Iranian mentality, hm? To release them so quicikly without being rewarded for themn, equals a desastrous loss of face and gives the impression of being afraid. The Iranians were not afraid of Reagan or the US (as if the hostage taking hasn't shown that). Plus your "explanation" leaves out several other details, like the timed delivery of fighter bombers.

You are right. Common sense some people seem to lose when talking about politics.

Okay, enough thread-hijackin for one day. We all seem to agree that the Peace Nobel for Obama rewards desires, hopes and wishful thinking only, and regarding the man's actual acchievements is undeserved. I leave it to that.

[Onkel Neal]

That's the way I saw it too. And reading numerous books, most reflected the same attitude. The Iranians were really paranois about the US and CIA, a big part of what led to taking the students hostage. They were seriously worried about Reagan taking office.

Now, that's my kind of president

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

LIE! There was no such thing!

Whom you are talking to? There is no wikipedia entry on my person, which means I do not exist. You seem to talk to a voice inside your head only.