Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I wonder which of these peaceful acts he won for:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5575883.ece

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...n-forces_N.htm

Shit, next thing you know they'll give Paul Krugman a Nobel prize for Economics and then the demise of the Nobel prize awards will be complete.

to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Originally Posted by buceta

The Peace prize is given to:



That is not to be confused with a Pacifist prize, which would be given to anybody who stopped all forms of aggression at any cost.

Hey, I know I am stating the obvious but clearly some people here need a lesson in basic analytical thinking.

"Who? What? So fast?" a shocked Walesa said when reporters told him about the latest Obama win.

"Well, there's hasn't been any contribution to peace yet. He's proposing things, he's initiating things, but he is yet to deliver," he said.

Walesa went on to say that we should see this as encouragement for Obama.

Obviously, the award is based on the hope that Obama will achieve real progress in advancing diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe.

A spokesman for the Nobel committee said she hoped that Mr. Obama's victory would be seen not only as a victory for him, but "as a tribute to the healing power of beer."

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Frankly, at this point, if he does anything less that turn it down, he's a fool.

No doubt there is serious debate going on inside the W.H. about this very question.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I seriously doubt he would turn it down. That award amounts to a large amount of political capitol that would be hard for any politician to pass by.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I think you need to think carefully about the "political math" here. This is actually something that could seriously backfire. No one cares for someone that's perceived to have received such a grand "prize" for having done nothing at all.

Note that the deadline date for nomination for this award was February 1, according to the Norwegian Nobel Committee website.

A Democratic National Committee spokesman said Friday the GOP has "thrown in its lot with the terrorists" in criticizing the president's Nobel Peace Prize award.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Who cares? We are talking about the same folks who gave it to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. It basically goes to the head of the Democratic party every couple years now. The real discussion should be how nasty Clinton had to be to in order to not be let into the "club."

As most have noted, a prize awarded for nothing becomes a prize worth nothing (except for the cash of course.)

Originally Posted by NoahJ

If a survey were done I am willing to bet that the majority of Americans do not have any idea the process used to determine who receives the prize and generally perceive the Nobel prize for peace to be only given to those who deserve it for something they have actually done. There will be those who share your thoughts on the matter, but overall I think it would be seen in a more positive light than negative. In this case Obama would get a net gain for accepting.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I personally would not be offended if he accepted,

Originally Posted by NoahJ

but would expect him to live up to the ideals it called him to. Things he has said and promised pre-qualify him for the prize and it may yet force him to keep those promises.

Originally Posted by crazychester

Link

But I'm really most interested to see how you all respond.

Does adda still post?

Originally Posted by BR

Remember, if George W Bush had won the Nobel Peace Prize and Democrats reacted the same way...

Originally Posted by BR

God dammit you fucking Republican jackoffs, don't you love your country? You sure aren't showing it by tearing it apart, undermining the president at every turn, and driving a deeper wedge between you and the rest of the nation.

Originally Posted by BR

Oh give me a break involuntary. You know very well what happened to Democrats at every turn when they opposed the actions or even spoke ill of George W Bush. Don't try to play dumb here and manipulate my words in order to avoid the point.

Originally Posted by BR

If you want to be manipulative, keep doing what you're doing. You just can't handle being held to your own standards that you set.

Originally Posted by BR

The standard you set for proper treatment of the POTUS. I have to run but you know very well what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I actually don't know what you're talking about. Maybe when you return you can explain, and be specific.

P.S. My comments in here are more along the lines of criticism of the Nobel Prize committee that Barack Obama himself. If stating that he hasn't done anything to warrant such a prize offends you, well I don't know what to do about that. Maybe disprove the claim with something substantial. Geez, some of the most liberal people I know personally are nonplussed by this and, while supportive of Obama (I am not) are scratching their head about this and saying the same thing...this is more about hope than actuality.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

So it appears that the Nobel Prize committee is in full on self-parody mode.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

The office of the President of the United States is sacrosanct. Unless it is a Democratic president, in which case you can accuse him of anything you like.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

And the DNC was right to call out the Republicans. The prize indicates the extremely high esteem Obama is held everywhere in the world. Americans should be proud of him today whether hes ready for the award or not.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Personally, to me, the office is not sacrosanct at all. I don't share the idolatry of the office or the person holding it like some do. To me he's a fallible person and should have far more limited powers and privileges than he currently does. Arguably, based on the notion that power corrupts, the president is even more fallible than the average person. And given that people knowingly and willingly and aggressively seek the position...I'd argue even more susceptible to this corruption.

Originally Posted by dfiler

At first I was surprised. After all, Obama hasn't been responsible for any direct, distinct advancements of peace. However, upon thinking about it longer, it makes perfect sense.

The greatest human originated danger facing the world is that of wars between nation states and perhaps a nuclear strike by terrorists. We were rapidly descending into a an era of increased distrust, militarism, and brinkmanship. The US was greatly contributing to this trend under the leadership of the Bush administration. Bush refused to negotiate with enemies, labeled them as the "axis of evil", and launched multiple invasions/occupations of other nations.

In the US we were largely oblivious to the level of reasonable hatred this caused. Sure, we were aware that "terrorists" hated the US. But what most Americans don't realize is that even moderates were beginning to hate the US. As a superpower, this had absolutely horrific implications for the likelihood of large-scale war.

Obama has largely reversed this trend. While extremists and some moderates still hate the US, a significant percentage of the world populace no longer sees the US as pure evil. They once again have confidence that this superpower is acting in a reasonable manner. The chance of war has greatly decreased. The climate of hatred is subsiding.

Certainly, Obama hasn't caused this by direct and distinct actions of peace. And he hasn't accomplished via a lifetime of peace movement leadership. But what he has done is foster a climate of diplomacy rather than military conflict. Opposing nations are talking again and the US/European relations have thawed. It's partially his name, partially his race, but perhaps mostly his willingness to talk to other world leaders on an equal footing. He has quite deftly convinced the much of the world that the US is no longer the world's biggest bully with an attitude problem.

Personally, I think it would have been better to wait and see if the trend is meaningful. But so far... we're on the right track. I can once again envision a day when the world religions will coexist in peace.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

................What? If anything, the policies of the US, borne out of economic necessity (after all we are teetering on insolvency), HAD to change. Our troops running around overseas and our military adventurism will stop because it costs us too much money. It has nothing to do with good or evil. All one need see is our country has been pouring money into the military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower warned, and they have been setting the agenda for this country for far too long. Corporatism rules.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

I can help.

The office of the President of the United States is sacrosanct. Unless it is a Democratic president, in which case you can accuse him of anything you like.

And the DNC was right to call out the Republicans. The prize indicates the extremely high esteem Obama is held everywhere in the world. Americans should be proud of him today whether hes ready for the award or not.