Jump to content
neural link

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Recommended Posts

He was nominated less than two weeks after he took office.

 

I think this undermined the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not saying Obama isn't going to earn it in the future, but I look at all these other brilliant people on the list....a doctor who started am organization in Africa that's helped hundreds of thousands of abused women...a man who's started hundreds of schools for Arabic girls, at the threat of death....organizations who've saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives by cleaning up cluster bombs... They have already been working toward bettering the world for years, and it just saddens me that they would 1) not recognize one of these outstanding people and 2) cheapen the significance of Obama receiving the prize by not giving it to him later in his presidency, when he's actually done more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize Obama may not have done anywhere near all he's promised to do yet for peace. However he's made huge leaps just by bringing certain issues into the conversation (e.g. dialogue with arab world, talks with Iran, nuke disarmament, reduce presence in Iraq & Afghanista, closing Guantanamo prison, apologizing (in essence) for Bush's scaring the world shitless, etc.). Has anyone else in the world actually done more for peace in the past year? Maybe, even though he hasn't done much, he still did the most.

 

Oh, and he's favored to win the Heisman this year...

168ecth.jpg

Edited by Fox On Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wehn is the award ceremony, or did it already happen? I hope Kanye shows up... (now leaving it up to your imagination)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem: applications were due in February(one month into his presidency)

 

I don't care who you are, he did nothing warranting a Nobel Peace Prize in his first month. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem: applications were due in February(one month into his presidency)

 

I don't care who you are, he did nothing warranting a Nobel Peace Prize in his first month. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me

 

Why does it have to be stuff he did while President? You know, people who aren't president can win too. Perhaps it was the stuff he was saying for the year leading up to winning, like in his Berlin speech when he said stuff like this:

 

"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand.

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand."

 

Or maybe it was stuff he wrote in his books. Maybe it was the change in tone to his relationship with the rest of the world. I liked the State Dept response, which was "It's better to have accolades thrown at you than shoes." That kinda sums it up for me.

 

I've been struggling with this all day, because frankly, I don't know that it's deserved...neither by the way does he apparently. I'm a big fan, but a Nobel? Hmm. I'm not sure about that. At the same time, though there are millions of other people doing great work towards peace, I can't immediately think of someone who has done more to change the "fraternity between nations." Also, you know just because the nomination was in February, they didn't decide then, so there are plenty of things SINCE then that could affect their decision...he was probably a longshot nomination at the time. But stuff like reversing NMD in Eastern Europe, restarting nuclear negotiations with Russia (dropping US and Russian warheads to 1500, from 2300 and 2800 respectively...that's a decent sized step.)

 

I still think he's a surprise choice, but not a horrible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize Obama may not have done anywhere near all he's promised to do yet for peace. However he's made huge leaps just by bringing certain issues into the conversation (e.g. dialogue with arab world, talks with Iran, nuke disarmament, reduce presence in Iraq & Afghanista, closing Guantanamo prison, apologizing (in essence) for Bush's scaring the world shitless, etc.). Has anyone else in the world actually done more for peace in the past year? Maybe, even though he hasn't done much, he still did the most.

It's pretty clear that this is just the "not Bush" award, then, and amounts to very little in my mind. Making a speech to the "Muslim world" (whatever that means), talking to Iran, dealing with Russia, and thinking about Iraq/Afghanistan (but not pulling troops out), lamely saying he's going to close Gitmo (but not really pushing for it), etc. are not things that he should get an award for. It's called shittily doing a small part of the job that he was elected to do. I judge him by what he's done and what he has the power to do. We still have a giant military, a presence in Afghanistan (likely increasing) and Iraq, Gitmo isn't closed, Bagram is open, not taking the appropriate action re: Honduras, the drug war in SA is still on, he didn't do shit about Israel's apartheid regime and war crimes, and so on. Has anyone in the Western world done more to maintain the most egregious regimes of violence and state terror?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it have to be stuff he did while President? You know, people who aren't president can win too.

But if he wasn't president, would he have won? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem: applications were due in February(one month into his presidency)

 

I don't care who you are, he did nothing warranting a Nobel Peace Prize in his first month. If you think otherwise, please enlighten me

Kissinger won for ending the Vietnam war....three years before the war ended.

 

This is nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that I was rather surprised by the choice. And while his 9 months of presidency aren't the limits to his contribution to the world, I don't see his 6 years as senator nor his several years in the Illinois state government as warranting such an award.

 

A part of me wonders if his peace award is really because he beat the color bar of American politics. He showed the unimaginable was possible. If that is the case, then the peace prize is really for the American voters who were willing to reject old prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it have to be stuff he did while President? You know, people who aren't president can win too. Perhaps it was the stuff he was saying for the year leading up to winning, like in his Berlin speech when he said stuff like this:

 

"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand.

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand."

 

Or maybe it was stuff he wrote in his books. Maybe it was the change in tone to his relationship with the rest of the world. I liked the State Dept response, which was "It's better to have accolades thrown at you than shoes." That kinda sums it up for me.

 

I've been struggling with this all day, because frankly, I don't know that it's deserved...neither by the way does he apparently. I'm a big fan, but a Nobel? Hmm. I'm not sure about that. At the same time, though there are millions of other people doing great work towards peace, I can't immediately think of someone who has done more to change the "fraternity between nations." Also, you know just because the nomination was in February, they didn't decide then, so there are plenty of things SINCE then that could affect their decision...he was probably a longshot nomination at the time. But stuff like reversing NMD in Eastern Europe, restarting nuclear negotiations with Russia (dropping US and Russian warheads to 1500, from 2300 and 2800 respectively...that's a decent sized step.)

 

I still think he's a surprise choice, but not a horrible one.

 

I know it's just not in the 11 days he was in office before applications were due, but think back...He was never talked about as a "game-changer" or a humanitarian, I'm not saying he doesn't support those efforts I am saying he has done nothing to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beating John "Bomb bomb Iran" McCain may have been a significant contribution to world peace.

Then the voters should get the award.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is in agreement, this is less about Obama and more about not being Bush. I think we can all agree that if Bush hadn't been president for the last eight years, Obama would not be considered for a nobel prize. And it is also true that the award if often given for momentum purposes, and this was clearly one of those times. I don't think Obama particularly deserves this award. And, politically, it probably was a tone deaf move on the part of the committee.

 

As far as the 11 days go, considering the extreme number of people who can nominate someone for the peace prize, I am not surprised that someone nominated him. What isn't clear to me is that cut off date for nominations is also the cut off date for considering who should get the award. Does anyone know that detail?

 

If not, I think going on about 11 days when you have a still silly number of 9 months is too much. The reality is strange enough without making it sound more extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still think he's a surprise choice, but not a horrible one.

But what of Afghanistan (troops levels likely to increase and it's clear there won't be withdrawal), Iraq, the lack of torture prosecutions, continuing abuses at Bagram, the continued support (including arms) for Israel even after it's clear they committed war crimes in Gaza, the luke-warm response on the Honduras coup, the continuation of the war on drugs (violently devastating poor communities domestic and foreign), the continued status of the US military as bigger than all others in the world combined, and so on. All of that should disqualify him from the peace prize (or anything involving peace), and he's certainly worse in that respect than a lot of the other nominees.

 

By awarding Obama or any president a peace prize, we're certainly deep in 1984 "war is peace" territory, though after Kissinger was awarded one this shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What isn't clear to me is that cut off date for nominations is also the cut off date for considering who should get the award. Does anyone know that detail?

I don't know if there is a "good deed" cut-off like with Emmy or Oscar voting, but the actual committee voting occurred just before the announcement. So I fully imagine that they took into account things since February.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why were people using sports figure's and there awards during the early part of this thread?

 

I don't think he deserved it...but it makes him look pretty.

 

Pretty people make other people happy.

 

glen Beck is not pretty

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it's just not in the 11 days he was in office before applications were due, but think back...He was never talked about as a "game-changer" or a humanitarian, I'm not saying he doesn't support those efforts I am saying he has done nothing to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize

 

You don't think Obama was talked about as a game changer during the election cycle? Were you living in a cave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what of Afghanistan (troops levels likely to increase and it's clear there won't be withdrawal), Iraq, the lack of torture prosecutions, continuing abuses at Bagram, the continued support (including arms) for Israel even after it's clear they committed war crimes in Gaza, the luke-warm response on the Honduras coup, the continuation of the war on drugs (violently devastating poor communities domestic and foreign), the continued status of the US military as bigger than all others in the world combined, and so on. All of that should disqualify him from the peace prize (or anything involving peace), and he's certainly worse in that respect than a lot of the other nominees.

 

By awarding Obama or any president a peace prize, we're certainly deep in 1984 "war is peace" territory, though after Kissinger was awarded one this shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

 

The people at the committee understand politics enough to know that some changes happen incredibly slowly, and some are not possible at this time at all. I don't think you have to live your life singing CumBaYa to be eligible. The award is for working to improve the fraternity between nations. Bombing bad guys multilaterally qualifies. Cutting the number of available nulcear weapons in half is a pretty big deal too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an absurd argument to say that bombing nations multilaterally should qualify one for a peace prize. That's like saying that a rapist who teams up with other rapists to gang rape someone should qualify for the "friendly guy" award because, hey, he did it as part of a team and, plus, at least he didn't murder them too. The obvious alternative is to not rape people.

 

Just yesterday, Obama decided to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by 13,000. These wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and, by proxy, Palestine) are wars of occupation and have nothing to do with liberation (either in intent or effect), and it is mindboggling to me that the person in charge of two wars of violent occupation while supporting a third should be awarded a peace prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an absurd argument to say that bombing nations multilaterally should qualify one for a peace prize. That's like saying that a rapist who teams up with other rapists to gang rape someone should qualify for the "friendly guy" award because, hey, he did it as part of a team and, plus, at least he didn't murder them too. The obvious alternative is to not rape people.

 

Just yesterday, Obama decided to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by 13,000. These wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, and, by proxy, Palestine) are wars of occupation and have nothing to do with liberation (either in intent or effect), and it is mindboggling to that the person in charge of two wars of violent occupation while supporting a third should be awarded a peace prize.

 

Dude. we are liberating. we are liberating oil, natural gas, and a direct path to Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...