Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:21 am trump says he's ended 7 wars and should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's look at the some of the "wars" ...

1) Possibly ending Israel's war on Gaza - with the ceasefire, the war is as close as it's ever been to conclusion but do you earn a Nobel Peace Prize for possibly ending a war. Too early to award a Nobel Peace Prize for this one.

2) Brokering a ceasefire between Iran and Israel - can he earn a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a ceasefire in a conflict where the US participated by striking Iranian nuclear sites? I say no.

3) Halting an aerial war between India and Pakistan - Pakistan credits trump for helping halt the fighting, India insists he had no role.

4) Truce between Cambodia and Thailand after phone calls from trump and mediation from Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and a delegation of Chinese negotiators. Only Cambodia has thanked Trump for his role.

5) Serbia and Kosovo have had tense relations but have not been involved in a war since trump's inaugeration. The EU and NATO have always been key mediators in this region. Doesn't impact his case.

6) Egypt and Ethiopia have had tense relations but not been involved in an actual war. Doesn't impact his case.

7) Rwanda and the DRC signed a peace deal in June, brokered by Trump. The ceasefire is fragile and tensions are high. This helps his case.

8) Peace agreement between Armenia (also known as Albania or Aleppo) and Azerbaijan at the White House. This helps his case.

9) Sending or attempting to send the national guard to LA, Chicago and Portland against the wishes of local leaders. This hurts his case.

10) His over campaigning for the prize breaks with tradition and hurts his chances.

IMO, 3 & 4 are the question marks.

• Helps his cause: 7, 8
• Hurts his cause: 9, 10, 11
• Too early to have an impact: 1
• No impact: 2 (brokering the deal is countered by being an active participant in the conflict), 5, 6
• Not sure: 3, 4

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:22 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:21 am trump says he's ended 7 wars and should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's look at the some of the "wars" ...

1) Possibly ending Israel's war on Gaza - with the ceasefire, the war is as close as it's ever been to conclusion but do you earn a Nobel Peace Prize for possibly ending a war. Too early to award a Nobel Peace Prize for this one.

2) Brokering a ceasefire between Iran and Israel - can he earn a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a ceasefire in a conflict where the US participated by striking Iranian nuclear sites? I say no.

3) Halting an aerial war between India and Pakistan - Pakistan credits trump for helping halt the fighting, India insists he had no role.

4) Truce between Cambodia and Thailand after phone calls from trump and mediation from Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and a delegation of Chinese negotiators. Only Cambodia has thanked Trump for his role.

5) Serbia and Kosovo have had tense relations but have not been involved in a war since trump's inaugeration. The EU and NATO have always been key mediators in this region. Doesn't impact his case.

6) Egypt and Ethiopia have had tense relations but not been involved in an actual war. Doesn't impact his case.

7) Rwanda and the DRC signed a peace deal in June, brokered by Trump. The ceasefire is fragile and tensions are high. This helps his case.

8) Peace agreement between Armenia (also known as Albania or Aleppo) and Azerbaijan at the White House. This helps his case.

9) Sending or attempting to send the national guard to LA, Chicago and Portland against the wishes of local leaders. This hurts his case.

10) His over campaigning for the prize breaks with tradition and hurts his chances.

IMO, 3 & 4 are the question marks.

I forgot to include:

11) US blows up alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. Possibly a violation of international law and likely hurts his chances.

So we have:

• Helps his cause: 7, 8
• Hurts his cause: 9, 10, 11
• Too early to have an impact: 1
• No impact: 2 (brokering the deal is countered by being an active participant in the conflict), 5, 6
• Not sure: 3, 4

What do other posters think?

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 3:19 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:22 pm

I forgot to include:

11) US blows up alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. Possibly a violation of international law and likely hurts his chances.

So we have:

• Helps his cause: 7, 8
• Hurts his cause: 9, 10, 11
• Too early to have an impact: 1
• No impact: 2 (brokering the deal is countered by being an active participant in the conflict), 5, 6
• Not sure: 3, 4

What do other posters think?

Do you think those boats are bringing the mail or Christmas presents? they know what they’re carrying.

If the illegal drug flow is drastically reduced obviously a lot more people are gonna be alive in the states

It’s more controversial not to do anything like Joe bozo Biden was so good at

GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:59 pm Yeah, when Obama got his Nobel Prize it was really aspirational - he hadn't done anything other than be elected. If they had known he would authorize all those drone strikes in Pakistan and other parts in the Middle East he probably would've been passed over for the Nobel. Trump starting to do those things before the award in hand will be seen as a negative.

Interestingly, I was listening to NPR the other day and they were interviewing a woman college professor in Pakistan and the differences of how people in that country view things versus how they're viewed in the West. They talked about Malala Yousafzai, the person who won a Nobel after being shot by the Taliban for advocating for education for women. She's obviously lionized in the West, but in Pakistan she's not. Apparently she produced/created some short lived Broadway musical and because another contributor on it was Hillary Clinton, it further soured regular Pakistanis on her. Hillary, being the Sec of State during Obama's reign of drone terror in the Middle East, catches the same blame Obama does. Apparently people in that region really took to heart the unilateral killings we performed there during that administration.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 1:22 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:21 am trump says he's ended 7 wars and should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's look at the some of the "wars" ...

1) Possibly ending Israel's war on Gaza - with the ceasefire, the war is as close as it's ever been to conclusion but do you earn a Nobel Peace Prize for possibly ending a war. Too early to award a Nobel Peace Prize for this one.

2) Brokering a ceasefire between Iran and Israel - can he earn a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a ceasefire in a conflict where the US participated by striking Iranian nuclear sites? I say no.

3) Halting an aerial war between India and Pakistan - Pakistan credits trump for helping halt the fighting, India insists he had no role.

4) Truce between Cambodia and Thailand after phone calls from trump and mediation from Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and a delegation of Chinese negotiators. Only Cambodia has thanked Trump for his role.

5) Serbia and Kosovo have had tense relations but have not been involved in a war since trump's inaugeration. The EU and NATO have always been key mediators in this region. Doesn't impact his case.

6) Egypt and Ethiopia have had tense relations but not been involved in an actual war. Doesn't impact his case.

7) Rwanda and the DRC signed a peace deal in June, brokered by Trump. The ceasefire is fragile and tensions are high. This helps his case.

8) Peace agreement between Armenia (also known as Albania or Aleppo) and Azerbaijan at the White House. This helps his case.

9) Sending or attempting to send the national guard to LA, Chicago and Portland against the wishes of local leaders. This hurts his case.

10) His over campaigning for the prize breaks with tradition and hurts his chances.

IMO, 3 & 4 are the question marks.

I forgot to include:

11) US blows up alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. Possibly a violation of international law and likely hurts his chances.

• Helps his cause: 7, 8
• Hurts his cause: 9, 10, 11, 12
• Too early to have an impact: 1
• No impact: 2 (brokering the deal is countered by being an active participant in the conflict), 5, 6
• Not sure: 3, 4

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 3:41 pm

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 3:19 pm

Do you think those boats are bringing the mail or Christmas presents? they know what they’re carrying.

If the illegal drug flow is drastically reduced obviously a lot more people are gonna be alive in the states

It’s more controversial not to do anything like Joe bozo Biden was so good at

That's not the way the law works. If the boats are suspected of smuggling drugs, they should be interdicted and searched. If drugs are found, the crew can be arrested and tried. If not, they can be released. Blowing them up should be the last resort not the first choice. By blowing them up, the crew is being given a death sentence without any sort of trial. That is un-American.

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:22 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 3:41 pm

That's not the way the law works. If the boats are suspected of smuggling drugs, they should be interdicted and searched. If drugs are found, the crew can be arrested and tried. If not, they can be released. Blowing them up should be the last resort not the first choice. By blowing them up, the crew is being given a death sentence without any sort of trial. That is un-American.

That’s still not the way the law works. At least in a liberal democracy. It was wrong for Obama to do it with Al Awaki and it’s wrong here.

We don’t want to become even more of a lawless nation.

We’re at the last resort

Been arresting these drug runners for decades

We don’t have enough resources to stop them all

Being arrested and put in jail with a light sentence is no deterrent at all really

Three square meals a day and free healthcare and besides, it’s safer in a US jail than working for these ruthless druglords that send these pawns out there on these boats

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:22 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 3:41 pm
That's not the way the law works. If the boats are suspected of smuggling drugs, they should be interdicted and searched. If drugs are found, the crew can be arrested and tried. If not, they can be released. Blowing them up should be the last resort not the first choice. By blowing them up, the crew is being given a death sentence without any sort of trial. That is un-American.

We’re at the last resort

Been arresting these drug runners for decades

We don’t have enough resources to stop them all

Being arrested and put in jail with a light sentence is no deterrent at all really

Three square meals a day and free healthcare and besides, it’s safer in a US jail than working for these ruthless druglords that send these pawns out there on these boats

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:04 pm

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 5:22 pm

We’re at the last resort

Been arresting these drug runners for decades

We don’t have enough resources to stop them all

Being arrested and put in jail with a light sentence is no deterrent at all really

Three square meals a day and free healthcare and besides, it’s safer in a US jail than working for these ruthless druglords that send these pawns out there on these boats

Last resort in handling that particular boat. If it is a serious threat to the ship and/or crew that is interdicting it then lethal force is justified as a last resort.

You don't get to cheery pick which amendments you want to uphold and which you don't unless you want Democrats doing the same with the 2nd amendment.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:16 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:04 pm
Last resort in handling that particular boat. If it is a serious threat to the ship and/or crew that is interdicting it then lethal force is justified as a last resort.

You don't get to cheery pick which amendments you want to uphold and which you don't unless you want Democrats doing the same with the 2nd amendment.

What amendment(s) is Trump violating here?

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:51 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:16 pm
What amendment(s) is Trump violating here?

4th (use of deadly force is the ultimate seizure), 5th (due process) & 8th (cruel & unusual punishment).

Plus the violation of international law and maritime law.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:51 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:16 pm
What amendment(s) is Trump violating here?

4th (use of deadly force is the ultimate seizure), 5th (due process) & 8th (cruel & unusual punishment).

Plus the violation of international law and maritime law.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:26 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 7:51 pm
4th (use of deadly force is the ultimate seizure), 5th (due process) & 8th (cruel & unusual punishment).

Plus the violation of international law and maritime law.

Wrong. Non citizens don‘t have any Constitutional Rights outside the jurisdiction of the US.

The catels are designated FTOs. In international law, a country may use deadly force against FTOs.

As far as maritime law, the U.S. is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:48 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:26 pm
Wrong. Non citizens don‘t have any Constitutional Rights outside the jurisdiction of the US.

The catels are designated FTOs. In international law, a country may use deadly force against FTOs.

As far as maritime law, the U.S. is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Wrong.

The Constitution protects persons, not just citizens. The U.S. has long asserted legal jurisdiction beyond its borders when it comes to maritime crimes and the Constitution constrains the U.S. government wherever it acts not just in the US.

Where is the video proof that they were members of a cartel or that they were transporting drugs?

Are you going to make a case for why trump has earned the Nobel Peace Prize or keep focusing on less relevant details?

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:08 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 8:48 pm
Wrong.

The Constitution protects persons, not just citizens. The U.S. has long asserted legal jurisdiction beyond its borders when it comes to maritime crimes and the Constitution constrains the U.S. government wherever it acts not just in the US.

Where is the video proof that they were members of a cartel or that they were transporting drugs?

Are you going to make a case for why trump has earned the Nobel Peace Prize or keep focusing on less relevant details?

Wrong. Non US citizens in the US have Constitutional rights. Non citizens overseas don‘t have Constitutional rights.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:17 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 9:08 pm
Wrong. Non US citizens in the US have Constitutional rights. Non citizens overseas don‘t have Constitutional rights.

Wrong.

One - use of force by the US government is still constrained by the Constitution.

Two - Guantánamo isn’t U.S. territory, yet prisoners there had Constitutional rights. Constitutional rights can reach non-citizens abroad when the U.S. government exercises authority or control. Taking someone's life is the ultimate in exercising authority/control.


BDKnitpicker doing what he does best.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 4:51 pm
Forgot another one:

12) Placing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The ICC is considered a leading contender for the award.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 6:57 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 4:51 pm
Forgot another one:

12) Placing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The ICC is considered a leading contender for the award.

The US, from both sides of the aisle, has kept the ICC at arms length, and for good reason. If the ICC existed during WWII it would've brought charges against most of the American military and government. It's imperfections are so significant that it really isn't useful.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:59 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 6:57 am

The US, from both sides of the aisle, has kept the ICC at arms length, and for good reason. If the ICC existed during WWII it would've brought charges against most of the American military and government. It's imperfections are so significant that it really isn't useful.

I don't disagree but I don't think that sanctioning ICC helped trump's cause. He appears to constantly want his good deeds to be seen in a vacuum while his bad deeds are overlooked or viewed through rose colored glasses.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 6:57 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 09, 2025 4:51 pm
Forgot another one:

12) Placing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The ICC is considered a leading contender for the award.

The US, from both sides of the aisle, has kept the ICC at arms length, and for good reason. If the ICC existed during WWII it would've brought charges against most of the American military and government. It's imperfections are so significant that it really isn't useful.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 8:10 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 7:59 am
I don't disagree but I don't think that sanctioning ICC helped trump's cause.

He appears to constantly want his good deeds to be seen in a vacuum while his bad deeds are overlooked or viewed through rose colored glasses.

I just wouldn't classify anything we do with the ICC as a "bad deed" right now. It's like when the UN Human Rights Commission was made up of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and a representative from the Taliban. Sometimes, believe it or not, politics outside of the US interfere with organizations that supposedly have good intentions. The US is the sole source of screwing things up.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 8:16 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 8:10 am

I just wouldn't classify anything we do with the ICC as a "bad deed" right now. It's like when the UN Human Rights Commission was made up of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and a representative from the Taliban. Sometimes, believe it or not, politics outside of the US interfere with organizations that supposedly have good intentions. The US is the sole source of screwing things up.

I should have separated those 2 sentences.

I don't think the Nobel Prize Committee would look favorably on sanctioning the ICC regardless of it's issues. The decision to issue warrants could have been denounced. Sanctions looked petty and vindictive.