Pres. Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

feh your insults are as petty and small as the number of republimurderers you have in congress now scuse me while i drop some knowledge comma paper on some social programs and public works

[Totenkopf]

feh your insults are as petty and small as the number of republimurderers you have in congress

 

good thing there's no such thing as "republimurderers".

 

now scuse me while i drop some knowledge comma paper on some social programs and public works

 

I'll be sure to look for it in the fiction section.

[cire992]

If having some stupid medal makes him feel better, then fine. Maybe he'll feel like a douche if he decides to escalate the wars (do politicians have feelings? I can't remember).

[El Sitherino]

To be fair though in the short time he has had in office he has helped quickly establish direct communication with our greatest foes including Iran, Syria, North Korea and has opened up the gates to Cuba, which no one has done in 40 years.

Nothing has entirely come to bear fruit, but it is credit enough to warrant him a nomination. It is entirely likely that this is just hopeful awarding on the part of the Nobel commitee and I'm assuming they're hoping an early win of the prize will inspire Obama to continue pursuing discussion with the rest of the world without pause or taking breaks.

 

It is of course up to us citizens to keep him hard pressed to make productive change and keep us advancing to stay near the head of the curve.

[Parmenides]

I stopped taking the nobel peace prize seriously when Arafat won it.

 

Bin laden would win it if he said that he wanted to work out a peace agreement between Al Qaeda and the western nations.

 

The honor in obtaining the prize for those truly deserving is eroding.

[Totenkopf]

To be fair though in the short time he has had in office he has helped quickly establish direct communication with our greatest foes including Iran, Syria, North Korea and has opened up the gates to Cuba, which no one has done in 40 years.

 

That's one way of looking at it. I wouldn't exactly call it an accomplishment worthy of a Nobel. Now, if his hoped for outcomes from this naive strategy of his actually bore fruit, that'd be a lot different. Frankly, it's more like awarding a gold medal to an athlete who hasn't run the race yet, but for who the olympic judges are hoping (there's that infernal word again) will break world records.

 

this is just hopeful awarding on the part of the Nobel commitee and I'm assuming they're hoping an early win of the prize will inspire Obama to continue pursuing discussion with the rest of the world without pause or taking breaks.

 

QFE b/c it is most likely the true reason. Peace at (almost) any price.

 

The honor in obtaining the prize for those truly deserving is eroding.

QFT

[ForeverNight]

^^ Totally agreed.

 

I can't say I've ever thought the Peace Prize was a good one to award. It seems like it's too open to creative interpetation on the part of the judges. If one truly wants to award a NPP to people, give it to whomever thought of SAC, they are the people that I feel really kept the peace during the Cold War.

 

Anyway, why are they thinking that awarding it early will help him in his pursuit of goals? All it's going to do is bolster the opinions of those who feel the same way as he does, while eroding his support/credability among those who disagree with him.

 

On a side note, great poli cartoon in my paper today, I'll have to find it online and post it here when I find it.

[Bimmerman]

I'm not anti-Obama; I actually voted for him.

 

That said, he doesn't deserve this award in the slightest. This simply cheapens the award for all future winners.

 

The nomination period ended Feb 1.....so..., he had from Jan 20 to Feb 1 to impress the committee so much to award him the Nobel. What happened in those eleven days? Nothing, nothing but empty words.

 

This is really a slap in the face to people who actually have devoted their lives to peace, to humanity, to the people. Not to a politician who has done nothing but give fancy speeches and inspire people. I would say this is more of a predetermined European metaphorical slap to the Republicans and Bu****es than anything else, as Obama clearly has done absolutely nothing to justify the award.

[jonathan7]

If I may give a little inkling into Nobel thinking; back in the days of apartheid in South Africa the Nobel committee gave the Peace Prize to Desmond Tutu, not on what he had done; but for what it was hoped he could achieve. The Nobel panel also hoped I think that giving him the Peace Prize would discourage Eugene Terre’Blanche's apartheid regime of arresting Desmond Tutu, as arresting a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate would be very news worthy and create even more international outcry. Obviously Tutu, went onto achieve what he was given the prize for, but at the time it was given for what it was hoped he would achieve as well as giving him a bit more protection. It could also be argued that when Tutu and Obama have accepted the prize the put pressure on themselves to deliver on what they have promised - if Obama has bitten off more than he can chew with the ME remains to be seen.

 

As such one has to wonder if the Nobel committee is trying to pressurize both the Israeli's and the Palestinians with regards the Middle East Process. More than any other President, Obama has engaged with the Middle East Peace Process, because I think he has correctly realised that dealing with this issue would do much to stop Al Qaeda's recruitment strategy and also improve American relations with the Arab world generally. Indeed you can see Al Qaeda is already in trouble from Obama's strategy due to the change in tact of Bin Laden's rhetoric in his press releases. On this point regardless of anything else, I would suggest not arguing with me - as I'm quite possibly the most travelled member of the Boards in the Muslim world, believe me Obama's policy in the Middle East has done much to improve the opinion of America in the eyes of the Arabs, regardless of anything else you may think.

[Totenkopf]

Might not some of that be, though, b/c they perceive him as being tough on Israel based on his rhetoric (no more settlements, etc...) as well as believing he's likely to disengage America from Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think that kind of "hope" is warranted on their part? Many a president over the last 40 or so years have claimed to want to make ME peace, no doubt as a part of their legacy. All have failed in any long term meaningful way so far.

 

I'd agree that the award was as much an attempt to influence (ie to meddle in) American foreign policy as it was yet another a calculated insult to the previous administration. I wonder if they'll suffer from a kind of buyer's remorse on this (or maybe us for having elected him). If BO finally agrees to put 40K+ troops in theatre or fails to influence Israel's actions, will they (the committee and "Arab street") feel had.....

[Jae Onasi]

 

I must say, this probably one of the more surprising news snippets that I've heard in some time. While I'd say that Obama has certainly promoted a more internationally diplomatic agenda in U.S. foreign policy, he hasn't really done anything vital in preventing a human tragedy of sorts. While I won't say that he doesn't deserve it, I will say that there are many more candidates that would be more than eligible for the honor.

 

My thoughts nearly exactly. I think he certainly has demonstrated Nobel potential down the road, but this seemed rather early. I would have liked to see more accomplishments under his belt before earning such a prestigious award, and I likewise think there were others this year who were likely better choices.

 

It's a fait accompli, however, and I think even Obama realizes it's a bit early for this, given his comments that he viewed it as a call to action for peace.

[Sabretooth]

You know, maybe they're actually making a pre-emptive strike for peace by awarding Obama a peace prize. Now that he has the world's (seemingly) most prestigious award for peace, he probably shouldn't go about fighting wars or committing other peace-disturbing hijinks, and work even harder for peace so that he'd deserve the prize awarded.

 

Always be optimistic when talking about the man.

[Parmenides]

You know, maybe they're actually making a pre-emptive strike for peace by awarding Obama a peace prize. Now that he has the world's (seemingly) most prestigious award for peace, he probably shouldn't go about fighting wars or committing other peace-disturbing hijinks, and work even harder for peace so that he'd deserve the prize awarded.

 

Always be optimistic when talking about the man.

 

I like that, "pre-emptive strike" ... heheh. Like what Bush did. If Nobel Peace Prize is about political maneuvering, much like Bush war strategies, then they can do it. But I wouldn't call it a prize per se. The peace prize is little more than an instrument of politics. You can consider that a good thing, but that's what it is or has become, an instrument of politics. Whether the pre-emptive strike works, remains to be seen.

[Ten-96]

Hmmm....Nobel Prize for Peace...

 

North Korea firing short and long range missiles - check.

 

Iran's continued progress towards gaining nuclear weapons - check.

 

Iran's assertion to destroy Israel and that the Holocaust was a lie - check.

 

Honduran President attempts to change their Constitution so that he can remain President for more than the alloted terms; is ousted, then Obama claims he should be reinstated- check.

 

Obama goes on world tour claiming that America is arrogant and apologizes for America - check.

 

 

I can see why Obama was chosen for the Nobel Prize for Peace.

[mur'phon]

originally posted by Ten

North Korea firing short and long range missiles - check.

 

Not of Obamas doing, and would have happened anyway - check

 

Iran's continued progress towards gaining nuclear weapons - check.

 

See above.

 

Iran's assertion to destroy Israel and that the Holocaust was a lie - check.

 

Obama, as in president of the US, not president of the world.

 

Honduran President attempts to change their Constitution so that he can remain President for more than the alloted terms; is ousted, then Obama claims he should be reinstated- check.

 

Since deposing a legally elected president is hardly democratic (or good for peace for that matter), I hardly see how this can cont against him getting the prize.

 

Obama goes on world tour claiming that America is arrogant and apologizes for America - check.

 

*murph wonders what this has to do with the peace prize*

[Ten-96]

*murph wonders what this has to do with the peace prize*

 

Nothing, but that's the point.

[mur'phon]

Help me here, you post in a thread about Obama getting the peace prize, yet claim it has nothing to do with the peace prize, in which caseI'd like to know why you posted it here in the first place.

[Ten-96]

My point was that Obama did nothing to deserve receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace.

 

[mur'phon]

While we agree that he didn't deserve it, kindly help me understand how this:

 

North Korea firing short and long range missiles - check.

 

Iran's continued progress towards gaining nuclear weapons - check.

 

Iran's assertion to destroy Israel and that the Holocaust was a lie - check.

 

Honduran President attempts to change their Constitution so that he can remain President for more than the alloted terms; is ousted, then Obama claims he should be reinstated- check.

 

Obama goes on world tour claiming that America is arrogant and apologizes for America - check.

 

counts against him getting the prize.

[Ten-96]

That was my sarcastic list of accomplishments that would qualify Obama to win the Nobel Prize for Peace. All of those things add up to nothing that Obama has accomplished. I will note that Obama has been able to triple the nation's debt though.

[Totenkopf]

Face it, when Arafat won the Nobel, that pretty much sealed the fate of the value of that prize. It's now mostly good for the $1.4mil and whatever the meltdown or trade value of the "trophy" is worth. Might as well be giving a Pulitzer to a new reporter in hope that he (she) will go on to break an astounding news story. I'd say this Nobel fits the camapign theme of this administration though......hope (misplaced).

[Ten-96]

Face it, when Arafat won the Nobel, that pretty much sealed the fate of the value of that prize. It's now mostly good for the $1.4mil and whatever the meltdown or trade value of the "trophy" is worth. Might as well be giving a Pulitzer to a new reporter in hope that he (she) will go on to break an astounding news story. I'd say this Nobel fits the campaign theme of this administration though......hope (misplaced).

 

 

QFE

 

QFT

[jonathan7]

Face it, when Arafat won the Nobel, that pretty much sealed the fate of the value of that prize.

 

The biggest issue with the Nobel Peace Prize is the fact Gandhi was never awarded it - the greatest proponent of Peace of the 20th Century...

 

I entirely disagree with this assessment Arafat was I think a good choice for the Nobel Peace prize (especially as it was in conjunction with two Israeli's) given after he had taken an entire u-turn in his thinking and engaged with Israel politically with the Olso peace accords being the result.

 

What Arafat did as a terrorist leader was shocking and evil, but I think his subsequent u-turn in policy and negotiation with Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin. Is the reason for awarding Indeed, it's hardly as if the latter two don't have blood on their hands either, so should they not have received the Peace Prize?

 

Nelson Mandela never formally renounced terrorism despite him having been a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, does that mean he shouldn't of received the award? I point this out, as to my mind Arafat in '88 publicly denounced terrorism and accepted Israel's right to exist. So I have to wonder why; given I'm sure no-one disputes Mandela getting the Nobel Peace prize why Arafat is in for such criticisms?

 

Furthermore, I would like solid proof as to the terrorism Atafat was supposedly involved in (I shall define what I mean by terrorism momentarily). He was a complex man, but as I recall he never organised attacks on non-Military targets and his involvement with Black September has never been proven; the "best" assertion by Western Intelligence Agencies is that he knew beforehand of their attacks.

 

I have to differentiate between attacks on civilians such as Munich, and attacks on the Military. Attacks on the Military regardless of anything else you think cannot be "Terrorism" as one mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fights. As such, it would seem to me helpful to avoid a hypocritical position, and assert that Terrorism, is the use of violent force to coerce a civilian population.

 

Hmmm....Nobel Prize for Peace...

 

North Korea firing short and long range missiles - check.

 

So why hadn't Bush done something about North Korea, considering they have always been far more of a security threat than Iraq, and Kim Jung-Il is far more of a brutal and tyrannical ruler than Saddam, indeed Kim Jung-Il makes Saddam Hussein look like Mother Teresa. This statements acts as if North Korea has only been doing this for the past 9 months where as in actual fact the development of their weapons will have taken a considerably longer time.

 

Iran's continued progress towards gaining nuclear weapons - check.

 

Well, what else would you have him do? Iran feels threatened and as such wants to acquire a Nuclear Device; but to be honest un-like North Korea (who's culture is entirely different), I think the Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction would mean should Iran ever get a Nuke, they would not use it. More-over Obama has managed to get the Russians onside, which will be an invaluable tool in pressuring Iran out of getting Nuclear Weapons. His biggest failure with regards Iran has to be not to support the uprising with his considerable oracle abilities.

 

Iran's assertion to destroy Israel and that the Holocaust was a lie - check.

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making that assertion for a long time, and indeed he visited the U.S. when Bush was president and made those claims in a U.S. university (personally I think that a triumph for freedom of speech, and hope the university had a professor destroy his preposterous claims). Regardless I'm not entirely sure what either Bush or Obama were or are meant to do about Ahmadinejad's claims.

 

Honduran President attempts to change their Constitution so that he can remain President for more than the alloted terms; is ousted, then Obama claims he should be reinstated- check.

 

This makes it seem cut and dry, but by the few reports I've read (and I don't know much on this subject); the President has the best interests of his people at heart, which seems different to the Military Junta's.

 

Obama goes on world tour claiming that America is arrogant and apologizes for America - check.

 

I don't think Obama has done that, but I think he realises that War and Military strength cannot secure America from terrorism. That engagement presents an option more likely to succeed in an age when conventional warfare is dead. Have you watched the film "The Kingdom"? If you have individuals determined to commit acts of wanton destruction (especially if they are prepared to die for that cause); stopping them is pretty much impossible.

 

None of this is to say Obama should of received the Nobel Peace Prize; Personally I'd of given the award to Aung Sang Suu Kyi who incidentally received the Gandhi Peace Prize.. Which the Indian Government started awarding in 1995, I think that given all the issues with the Nobel Peace Prize, this may well over take Nobel as the worlds foremost Peace Award.

[Ten-96]

So why hadn't Bush done something about North Korea, considering they have always been far more of a security threat than Iraq, and Kim Jung-Il is far more of a brutal and tyrannical ruler than Saddam, indeed Kim Jung-Il makes Saddam Hussein look like Mother Teresa. This statements acts as if North Korea has only been doing this for the past 9 months where as in actual fact the development of their weapons will have taken a considerably longer time.

 

Bush was dealing with the war in Iraq at the time. He was in the process of taking sanctions against North Korea

 

Well, what else would you have him do? Iran feels threatened and as such wants to acquire a Nuclear Device; but to be honest un-like North Korea (who's culture is entirely different), I think the Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction would mean should Iran ever get a Nuke, they would not use it. More-over Obama has managed to get the Russians onside, which will be an invaluable tool in pressuring Iran out of getting Nuclear Weapons. His biggest failure with regards Iran has to be not to support the uprising with his considerable oracle abilities.

 

Threatened by whom? Iran is no longer at war with Russia. The radical Islamics in Iran have proven through suicide bombings that they will use whatever means necessary to fulfill their perceived destiny. For example, they began using children (radical Islamics) to place roadside bombs, suicide bombs, etc...because they know our rules of engagement. Just as a point of order, Russia hasn't committed to the sanctions against Iran on behalf of the U.S.

 

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making that assertion for a long time, and indeed he visited the U.S. when President Bush was president and made those claims in a U.S. university (personally I think that a triumph for freedom of speech, and hope the university had a professor destroy his preposterous claims). Regardless I'm not entirely sure what either Bush or Obama were or are meant to do about Ahmadinejad's claims.

 

Israel is one of our allies. If our ally is threatened, we should side with our ally. Bush spoke out against Ahmadinejad while he was in office. Has Obama?

 

I don't think Obama has done that, but I think he realises that War and Military strength cannot secure America from terrorism. That engagement presents an option more likely to succeed in an age when conventional warfare is dead. Have you watched the film "The Kingdom"? If you have individuals determined to commit acts of wanton destruction (especially if they are prepared to die for that cause); stopping them is pretty much impossible.

 

 

Here is a recent YouTube clip.

 

 

 

None of this is to say Obama should of received the Nobel Peace Prize;

 

QFE

QFT

[jonathan7]

I can respond to you via PM if you wish But we seem to have strayed massively off the topic of the Peace Prize and moved to world politics -- j7