So all of this amounts to, at the very most, at the most hopeful: "The imperialist war in Afghanistan is the lesser of two evils."
And what real progress has been made, or is being made, by this war? You can say "But how else do you want to go about it", but that's just a vague apology with no real weight.
First of all, this war is not unilateral. There are many countries involved. So I wouldn't call it exactly an imperialist war. Secondly, doesn't all the choices come down to the lesser of the two evils? So when there's no good options you wouldn't choose if you want to die by being hanged or being shot to death? I'd take what little difference there's between the two evil options, but that's just me.
US foreign policy does little to promote "peace" or "hope". It does the very opposite, for me. It continues to be an aggressive, imperialist, jingoist superpower.
Well, let's say that's just you. From where I stand, it has already spread hope for change throughout the Middle East. The movements started with each election in the countries here, goes to show how simple words and gestures have affected people of the Middle East.
It's irrelevant who else was nominated because Obama won it. I don't need to know who else was nominated because whether or not I could or would argue for somebody else winning it more than Obama does not change the symbolic shift it represents in international relations between the bougeois nations of Europe and the US. "Who should have won" might make for an interesting debate, but my issue isn't that Obama beat anybody else, or whether he was a more deserving winner than candidate A or B, it's that he won it all, that he was even considered for it on such wanting evidence of objective achievement.
Okay, that doesn't make any sense. There are candidates X, Y and Z are up for the award. Y won the ward. Show me how X and Z were more deserving candidates to win it. It is as simple as that.
But you're talking about four years ago when Bush still had enough social sway to remain in office; Obama wouldn't have beat him four years ago.
I disagree. Kerry lost in a very close race. Had it been a more charismatic candidate, like Obama, Bush couldn't stand a chance.
Might we read this international gesture as "A Prize for Not Being Bush"? Yes indeed. It shows the other nations of Europe showing their support for Obama and thus sparking further hope in him on an international scale - "look, even Europe loves him!" But what it really is is a cynical endorsement of further US militarism.
I'm not here to change your mind about this. It is your view and you could insist on it all you want. I trust my views must be very clear with all these responses and I have nothing further to say.
