Jump to content

Home

Pres. Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.


Astor

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

 

Given that a discussion of Arafat's dubious qualifications would also be tangential to the OP, we can take it to PM as well if you'd like.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473543586270418.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gOy7GLcrP7iQja3yU5Zu4BHMqFdw

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9264422c2946d8bf1cb62cde139e996e.741&show_article=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I can't imagine how Conservatives can possibly think that Obama being nominated for the award 11 days into his presidency was a slap in the face. I mean by then Obama had done so much to help.... um what did he do exactly in those 11 days?

 

I mean what did he do in those first days that truly earned him the nomination. I mean you could argue that him being the first black president of the US was something, but I would say that is more of an accomplishment of the people of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I can't imagine how Conservatives can possibly think that Obama being nominated for the award 11 days into his presidency was a slap in the face. I mean by then Obama had done so much to help.... um what did he do exactly in those 11 days?

 

I mean what did he do in those first days that truly earned him the nomination. I mean you could argue that him being the first black president of the US was something, but I would say that is more of an accomplishment of the people of the US.

 

As the Committee has said several times, it's not what he DID, it's what he intends to do and what he is trying to do. Just because Obama didn't officially become president until 11 days before the award, doesn't mean that everything he said he wanted to do before that never happened. The award was given for what he's trying to do, not for what he'd done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the Committee has said several times, it's not what he DID, it's what he intends to do and what he is trying to do. Just because Obama didn't officially become president until 11 days before the award, doesn't mean that everything he said he wanted to do before that never happened. The award was given for what he's trying to do, not for what he'd done.

 

Which is not more than what Bush promised. Or any other president to be frank. But I guess maybe its because he also promised to undo what Bush did... Hmmm yeah thats the only thing Obama really promised that Bush did not. Again its more like it was a slap in the face to Bush than anything.

 

There were 205 nominees. Are you telling me that not one of those nominees had done more than make a few campaign promises?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is not more than what Bush promised. Or any other president to be frank. But I guess maybe its because he also promised to undo what Bush did... Hmmm yeah thats the only thing Obama really promised that Bush did not. Again its more like it was a slap in the face to Bush than anything.

Yes, "not being Bush" is in the eyes of Europe(which makes up much of the Nobel prize Committee), one heck of an achievement.

 

There were 205 nominees. Are you telling me that not one of those nominees had done more than make a few campaign promises?

No, I have no idea what they did or did not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, "not being Bush" is in the eyes of Europe(which makes up much of the Nobel prize Committee), one heck of an achievement.

As I said, it seems more like its about being a slap in the face to Bush than anything.

 

No, I have no idea what they did or did not do.

 

I'm just saying that with a record 205 nominees, there should have been at least ONE that did more than make campaign promises. I mean its entirely possible that none were any better than that. If that's the case, and Obama really DID deserve it... then I fear for our world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face it, the schmuck that headed the prize committee this time around is a leftist political hack. That the 3 other members of the group were persuaded to change their initial positions on BO as the choice says little for them. The fact that the choice was steeped in "hope" only further eroded the value of the peace prize. Way to whore yourselves, Nobel committee. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face it, the schmuck that headed the prize committee this time around is a leftist political hack. That the 3 other members of the group were persuaded to change their initial positions on BO as the choice says little for them. The fact that the choice was steeped in "hope" only further eroded the value of the peace prize. Way to whore yourselves, Nobel committee. :rolleyes:

 

to be fair, I don't think it eroded the value of the prize nearly as much as Arafat getting it and Ghandi never getting it.

 

I can only guess at how much uproar there would be if Bush had gotten it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

C'mon guys give Jagland&co a bit more credit. First of all, while not being GWB helped, what he did after being nominated sure did a lot more. I'll not claim the prize is perfect (how the people are selected for the commitee is one thing in particular I dislike). That, and the fact that the prize has been de-politisized the last years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon guys give Jagland&co a bit more credit. First of all' date=' while not being GWB helped, what he did after being nominated sure did a lot more. I'll not claim the prize is perfect (how the people are selected for the commitee is one thing in particular I dislike). That, and the fact that the prize has been de-politisized the last years.[/quote']

 

Can't. Having said that, though, depoliticized how? You mean besides going to people like Al Gore over golbal warming (a politically calculated decision, though, I'd say)? I don't follow the prize that closely, so not exactly sure what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Tot, even I'd give him that much credit, even though he is a former labor(left) PM and I'm a liberal.

Depolitilized, as in, unlikely to lead to a lot of angry countries hating Norway, while it's divisive in the US to give it to Al Gore, most didn't give a damn, now, if it had been given to a Chineese disident...

Note I personally hate how it has ended up, I want the peace prize to something to give a voice to those who put their lives (or at least their careers) on the line for peace, not something you give to a damn planter of trees (Wangari).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd say it's probably very politicized then, in terms of trying to calculate the least amount of blowback (in this case merely negative feelings) for whomever they choose. As you say, don't make the courageous choices b/c they might upset the wrong people. :rolleyes: (at them, not you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...