PDA

View Full Version : Pres. Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.


Astor
10-09-2009, 06:20 AM
Story. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm)

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,"

Thoughts? Was he the right choice, or do you think someone else deserved to win the prize?

e-varmint
10-09-2009, 07:04 AM
I have three thoughts:

1) You have to get up pretty darn early to be "first in" with a juicy topic such as this. I'll try harder next time.

2) That NC statement makes me wretch.

3) Edit: OK, that was a cheap shot, even for me. I'll be nice and replace it with this: I guess it could have been worse. I was sort of expecting Chavez or Zayleya to get it.

Astor
10-09-2009, 07:21 AM
1) You have to get up pretty darn early to be "first in" with a juicy topic such as this. I'll try harder next time.

That's the beauty of living on a different continent with a timezone five hours ahead of Washington and the East Coast of the US. ;)

On reflection, I do think that there are perhaps more deserving people - Morgan Tsvangarai, for instance, has done his best to work with Mugabe's government to help Zimbabwe, which is no small thing when you remember that Zanu PF tried to have him exiled or worse.

jrrtoken
10-09-2009, 07:32 AM
:indif:

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.

Totenkopf
10-09-2009, 08:16 AM
I think it's too early in his term for such an honor. But this is the same group that gave Carter the award for the Agreed Framework with the duplicitous NKs, so the honor is dubious at best. Still, I'm sure this takes some of the sting out of his "failure" at Copenhagen.

Darth InSidious
10-09-2009, 10:04 AM
This is only slightly beyond parody.

Sabretooth
10-09-2009, 10:08 AM
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,"

Yes, unlike Gandhi. Cursed doombringer Gandhi.

Astor
10-09-2009, 10:14 AM
I think it's too early in his term for such an honor.

From what i've heard of the nomination process, he would have only been President for 11 days when the deadline ended. The decision wasn't made until August, I think, but I agree - it feels premature to award it to him after less than a year in office.

Drunkside
10-09-2009, 10:41 AM
From what i've heard of the nomination process, he would have only been President for 11 days when the deadline ended. The decision wasn't made until August, I think, but I agree - it feels premature to award it to him after less than a year in office.

definetely premature... Take the last years winner for example. The former president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari. He had spent countless years helping with peace around the globe before he got the prize, and i definetely dont think Obama has done very much. Hope fully he does, but still, premature rewarding if anything.

SW01
10-09-2009, 12:02 PM
I had much the same thoughts, though regarding David Trimble and John Hume for the Good Friday Agreement here. Even that one may have been called premature, considering how long the government lasted.

I very much think there should be some concrete action first to justify the award.

Pho3nix
10-09-2009, 12:27 PM
It's just an award though.

Samuel Dravis
10-09-2009, 01:03 PM
My first thought on hearing this was "What? What for?"

I'm not exactly anti-Obama but this seems to be premature.

Arcesious
10-09-2009, 02:12 PM
I don't have a problem with Obama, but... Really? He can talk good just like any other politician. That doesn't mean that he deserves the Nobel Prize. At least, not yet. Man, I bet Fox news is going to have a field day with this...

mur'phon
10-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Yet again the NC seems unable to grasp what "peace" is when handing out the prize. They also seem unwilling to give it to anyone who might piss off a country. Obama might have gotten the prize eventually, but right now it seems like Bush's incredible unpopularity in Norway coupled with Obama's popularity in the same place is the reason he got it.

Astor
10-09-2009, 02:20 PM
Man, I bet Fox news is going to have a field day with this...

Apparently some Republicans and conservatives are already trying to claim that the choosing of Obama was purely to spite the Bush Administration, which seems more than a little absurd.

ForeverNight
10-09-2009, 03:13 PM
I seriously thought this was a joke when I saw it.

I don't doubt the guy is going to eventually earn it, but this is nuts!!!!

Besides, what has he truly done to deserve this? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Q
10-09-2009, 04:08 PM
This is only slightly beyond parody.
As it has been ever since the prize was awarded to Arafat. No matter how absurd it may seem to be (and it is), this really isn't surprising at all.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-09-2009, 04:53 PM
this is our show now, republicants http://i38.tinypic.com/257klcy.gif

Litofsky
10-09-2009, 05:45 PM
My first thought on hearing this was "What? What for?"

I'm not exactly anti-Obama but this seems to be premature.

This.

Besides for setting goals for the future, what has Obama really done to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

Web Rider
10-09-2009, 05:48 PM
*shrug* The Noble Peace Prize is paid for by the proceeds from TnT. And really, it's kinda nice to have a President win something for at least trying to bring people together. Better than people wanting him to be tried for war crimes. Still, I'd like to see him actually do something on some of his various pledges before I'd of given him an award.

mur'phon
10-09-2009, 06:57 PM
what has Obama really done to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

Impressed a guy named Jagland

urluckyday
10-09-2009, 08:07 PM
Wow...just wow.

I guess this prize is meaningless now because if our world is so down the drain that Obama wins this award there must not be any really good people left in the world.

El Sitherino
10-09-2009, 08:13 PM
I gotta agree with the majority, he hasn't really done much impressive to give hope to a generation other than winning an election.
We still haven't even delivered effective healthcare reform, which was at the top of his list. Granted it's out of his realm of power, he hasn't checked anything off of his agenda list.

Q
10-09-2009, 08:14 PM
I'll echo the sentiment that he really hasn't done enough yet to justify an award of this magnitude.

this is our show now, republicants
"All those... moments will be lost in time... like... tears... in rain." ;P

Totenkopf
10-09-2009, 08:26 PM
this is our show now, republicants

Perhaps, but now you democraps must endure the heckling. :D

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-09-2009, 11:50 PM
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 http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=16&pictureid=2300

Totenkopf
10-10-2009, 04:41 AM
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. :xp:

cire992
10-11-2009, 08:47 PM
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
10-11-2009, 08:56 PM
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
10-11-2009, 10:05 PM
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
10-11-2009, 10:09 PM
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
10-11-2009, 11:53 PM
^^ 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
10-12-2009, 01:12 PM
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
10-12-2009, 01:31 PM
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
10-12-2009, 07:33 PM
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
10-12-2009, 09:26 PM
:indif:

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
10-12-2009, 10:44 PM
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
10-13-2009, 10:32 AM
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
10-14-2009, 03:17 AM
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.:raise:

mur'phon
10-14-2009, 04:13 AM
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
10-14-2009, 04:45 AM
*murph wonders what this has to do with the peace prize*

Nothing, but that's the point.:thmbup1:

mur'phon
10-14-2009, 04:48 AM
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
10-14-2009, 04:53 AM
My point was that Obama did nothing to deserve receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace.

http://i36.tinypic.com/1547tb6.jpg

mur'phon
10-14-2009, 05:09 AM
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
10-14-2009, 05:27 AM
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
10-14-2009, 06:14 AM
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
10-14-2009, 07:13 AM
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
10-14-2009, 07:49 AM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
10-14-2009, 08:12 AM
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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlhih1uuXRA)




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

QFE
QFT

jonathan7
10-14-2009, 08:22 AM
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

Ten-96
10-14-2009, 09:20 AM
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

Point taken, my friend :D. My apologies to the Original Poster for going off topic.

Totenkopf
10-14-2009, 09:46 AM
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?m od=rss_opinion_main

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

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9264422c2946d8bf1cb62cde139e996 e.741&show_article=1

Darth Avlectus
10-21-2009, 06:48 PM
Won the nobel peace prize of 2009? For doing what? Promising stuff and making a stunning delivery on his speech?

Wow. I should get into professional BSing, I could make a fortune. :xp:

Ten-96
10-22-2009, 01:41 AM
Won the nobel peace prize of 2009? For doing what? Promising stuff and making a stunning delivery on his speech?

Wow. I should get into professional BSing, I could make a fortune. :xp:

You'd still need a teleprompter. ;)

Tommycat
10-22-2009, 09:06 PM
You'd still need a teleprompter. ;)

And a speechwriter.

Totenkopf
10-23-2009, 05:36 PM
And the ability to think more quickly on your feet when the teleprompter goes down and you've forgotten to memorize your speech (assuming you bothered to in the first place). :dev9:

Tommycat
10-23-2009, 11:54 PM
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.

Web Rider
10-24-2009, 12:33 AM
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.

Darth Avlectus
10-24-2009, 12:39 AM
Maybe I am off my hinges but I thought it was given on the basis of past accomplishments? :confused:

Tommycat
10-24-2009, 12:57 AM
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?

Web Rider
10-24-2009, 01:07 AM
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.

Tommycat
10-24-2009, 01:16 AM
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...

Totenkopf
10-24-2009, 05:26 AM
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:

Tommycat
10-24-2009, 07:52 AM
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...

Q
10-24-2009, 10:20 AM
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.
Same here. This is bad, but not THAT bad.

Totenkopf
10-24-2009, 11:09 AM
I agree that Arafat was a bad choice. Hence I only said further w/o any other qualifiers (like really, seriously, etc ad nauseam).

Te Darasuum Mandalor
02-06-2010, 08:16 AM
I know this is old news but I meant to post this up here two months ago. Apparently Obama got theNobel Peace prise just for NOT being George Busch! Any comments?

Darth Avlectus
02-07-2010, 02:42 AM
^^^I'm still in question of that myself. I mean if I were a presidential candidate and could promise anything because I'm NOT george bush, then why would I deserve such a prize?

It just makes me wonder what the prize is worth if it is on the opinionated political whims of the prize grantors.

mur'phon
02-08-2010, 04:18 PM
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.

Totenkopf
02-08-2010, 04:58 PM
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.

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.

mur'phon
02-08-2010, 05:12 PM
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).

Totenkopf
02-08-2010, 06:31 PM
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).