Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sushi on October 09, 2009, 09:52:09 am
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
All I can say is
WHAT THE CRAP, NOBEL COMMITTEE?!?!
Mr. Nobel must be turning in his grave right now. Wait another decade, and give him time to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING FIRST, THEN give him a peace prize, if he deserves one. What really incenses me is that the nominations had to be postmarked by Feb. 1. In other words, he effectively won the prize before he had time to warm up the seat in the Oval Office. So he basically got the award for running an inspiring campaign. What. A. Joke.
This whole thing, IMHO, really tarnishes the image of the Nobel Peace Prize. Was there really no other worthy candidate who has actually accomplished something? I kind of hope Obama turns it down, saying something like "Thanks, but I can't take this... I haven't accomplished all I set out to do yet."
-
Can the GOP butthurt, for chrissakes. The Republican party handed this to Obama, among many other things.
To be honest, while probably premature, there is sense to this.
As the only remaining superpower, a president who believes in international cooperation and offering hope to the world rather than a closed fist is basically everything the sane world would ever ask for out of the President of the United States. Obama's policies were already outlined well before he was in office. Just by defeating McCain, Obama did far more to restore the vision of a community of brother nations than some previous holders of the NPP have.
-
wait wat
I'm not really sure he deserves this quite yet...
-
Yeah considering TR and Wilson actually accomplished something first I'm not to keen about his. Sure NGTM-1R has a bit of a point but I tend to think not being a jackass to other nations isn't exactly the same as brokering a peace or accomplishing a major piece of diplomacy. If he managed to extract us from Iraq or Afghanistan and leave stable governments in our wake that would be one thing but we're still knee deep in it in both countries.
-
Can the GOP butthurt, for chrissakes.
I'm not GOP, but thanks for playing the partisan game.
A great slashdot comment sums up the situation better than I can:
Honestly, if I were him, I'd be pretty pissed about this. He really doesn't need this kind of controversy right now. They've essentially used him to make a political statement, and it's just going to cause problems at a time when he's got more than enough to deal with. It'll get the conservatives all bristly and the libs all full of themselves, and then it becomes even harder to get anything done. All for a prize that I'm sure he knows is bull****, and will be completely hollow for him.
-
Well now he just has to follow through with his more idealistic policies loool
-
Who else gets it then?
-
I like Obama, I really do. If he can manage all that he's got planned, then maybe he'd deserve it in a few years time. Right now, though, he's in the planning stages. It's just too early to be giving out the prize.
Although they were right; he's got a tall order to earn this now.
-
Why give the man a prize for doing his job? For TALKING about doing things?
If he solves the Palestinian/Israel issue in a manner that is fair to the Palestinians then sure give him the damn prize but not before. What a joke.
The thing is, nominations for the nobel peace prize closed 11 days after his official inaugration. So he had to have been nominated long ago and before he really did anything, not that he's done a whole lot since, at least in concrete terms.
-
There is someone quite much more influential than a random slashdot commentator that gives some more insight and a different POV into this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-r_n_314996.html
"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity
-
Okay. He still hasn't done anything tangible yet though.
-
There is someone quite much more influential than a random slashdot commentator that gives some more insight and a different POV into this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-r_n_314996.html
"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity
Still that falls under the purview of what he should be doing as a matter of course. I figure the prize should be awarded to someone who goes above and beyond and accomplishes something tangible in the pursuit of peace. Not "hey the US administration isn't acting like a bunch of jackasses like the previous eight years."
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
All I can say is
WHAT THE CRAP, NOBEL COMMITTEE?!?!
Mr. Nobel must be turning in his grave right now. Wait another decade, and give him time to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING FIRST, THEN give him a peace prize, if he deserves one. What really incenses me is that the nominations had to be postmarked by Feb. 1. In other words, he effectively won the prize before he had time to warm up the seat in the Oval Office. So he basically got the award for running an inspiring campaign. What. A. Joke.
This whole thing, IMHO, really tarnishes the image of the Nobel Peace Prize. Was there really no other worthy candidate who has actually accomplished something? I kind of hope Obama turns it down, saying something like "Thanks, but I can't take this... I haven't accomplished all I set out to do yet."
I can't say I disagree. :blah:
And for the record in case someone has not been able to figure out my political opinions, I'm not a GOP supporter either.
There's just no real basis for this kind of recognition yet in my opinion. "Not being Bush" shouldn't be enough for a Nobel peace prize.
Why not, you know, let the man handle his first four years in office and then see what he actually got done, rather than award him for some obscure psychological boost he supposedly gave to the world?
(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8049/nobeldisappoint.png)
-
ok, so we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like we might possibly be going into Iran before his term is up, the US is even more divided now that it was under Bush to the point I could see it spiraling into a civil war and so far the only thing he has managed to do is give a few hundred billion to some banker CEOs that deserved to go to the poor house.
is the Nobel committee saying that destablizeing America is a step towards world peace?
-
ok, so we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like we might possibly be going into Iran before his term is up, the US is even more divided now that it was under Bush to the point I could see it spiraling into a civil war and so far the only thing he has managed to do is give a few hundred billion to some banker CEOs that deserved to go to the poor house.
is the Nobel committee saying that destablizeing America is a step towards world peace?
we must break you down to make you better?
yeah, Obama really hasn't done much, and the US seems like its only going to further polarize, and while civil war seems unlikely, i wouldn't rule it out, which makes everyone nervous.
It seems like a publicity stunt... i think...
I mean, he's a hell of a lot better than McCain/P- :shaking:-Palin :shaking:, but a nobel peace prize? that's a bit much.
this year, at least.
-
Maybe the nobel peace prize guys were bored and decided they wanted to cause global controversy. I don't think Obama is particularly fond of them right now.
-
ok, so we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like we might possibly be going into Iran before his term is up, the US is even more divided now that it was under Bush
Cite please?
The culture war is a myth.
-
maybe I overstated things slightly, but my point was he has not done anything to... no, he just flat out hasn't done anything.
what do you want me to cite on? I don't think there is a lot of dispute that we are still in those countries, the Iran thing was my opinion, and are you suggesting that we are as a nation unified right now?
the only thing I said that wasn't stupidly obvious was the civil war thing, and all I said was 'I think' there is a remote possibility.
-
We are actually pretty unified as a country. Voters don't go to the polls with 'family values' or anything like that in mind, the electorate hasn't cared about gay marriage or social issues for many election cycles, and there aren't any 'red states' or 'blue states': it's mostly a big wash of purple with some gradients.
-
What exactly do you expect out of the Iraq/Afghanistan situation? We dropped the ball in Afghanistan in 2003 when we decided to go along with Bush's grand Iraq folly. Instead of concentrating on hunting down the Taliban and building a nation that could stand on its 2 feet we pretty much remained status quo for 8 years while we engaged in Iraq. Time enough for the Taliban to get its ass back together and woop di do its the 1980s war all over again. Iraq is well Iraq, congratulations on busting open the Middleast's version of the Balkans. There is no magic solution, to the problem. Neither of these situations were of the current administration's own making.
-
When we leave Afghanistan he can have a prize. Or Iraq. Or stop some war SOMEWHERE.
No-one has won in Afghanistan. Ever. Time to go.
-
No-one has won in Afghanistan. Ever. Time to go.
Yeah, the irony in Afghanistan is rather acute. Looking at the history of all this we see the Russians invade, the Americans give support to the Mujahideen, (The reason was to give Russia its Vietnam, IMO that seems kinda fair) the Russians pull out and the Taliban take over. Then the Americans come in after 9/11, guns blazing and all the support that they gave to the Mujahideen was forgotten.
But also the concept of a Nobel peace prize is somewhat contradictory in itself, this is the man who gave us many of today's most used explosives, giving rise to a whole new generation of weaponry.
-
But also the concept of a Nobel peace prize is somewhat contradictory in itself, this is the man who gave us many of today's most used explosives, giving rise to a whole new generation of weaponry.
Not as contradictory as you may think.
-
Stuart: You also forgot the Chinese and the Mongols. NO-ONE has ever won in Afghanistan, and there's been fighting there for the last thousand years.
-
No-one has won in Afghanistan. Ever. Time to go.
Yeah, the irony in Afghanistan is rather acute. Looking at the history of all this we see the Median Empire, Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Mauryan Empire, Sunga Dynasty, Greco-Bactrians, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Parthian Empire, Indo-Parthians, Kushan Empire, Sassanids, Kidarite Huns, Hepthalites, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, British and the Russians invade, the Americans give support to the Mujahideen, (The reason was to give Russia its Vietnam, IMO that seems kinda fair) the Russians pull out and the Taliban take over. Then the Americans come in after 9/11, guns blazing and all the support that they gave to the Mujahideen was forgotten.
But also the concept of a Nobel peace prize is somewhat contradictory in itself, this is the man who gave us many of today's most used explosives, giving rise to a whole new generation of weaponry.
Fix'd for the great justice. :nervous:
-
Stuart: You also forgot the Chinese and the Mongols. NOONE has ever won in Afghanistan, and there's been fighting there for the last thousand years.
Yeah it's true. I was really just looking at the irony of the current situation (5000 word essay on it :( ) but yeah I feel truly saddened to see our brave soldiers dying every day out there.
The worst part is that my CCF RSM was in the regiment that is currently out there, so I have met some of the guys who are out there right now, men who may never come home again. :( :(
-
This does strike me as premature, but I think it will be worth it just to see the new shades of red and purple on conservatives' faces.
-
No-one has won in Afghanistan. Ever. Time to go.
Yeah, the irony in Afghanistan is rather acute. Looking at the history of all this we see the Median Empire, Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Mauryan Empire, Sunga Dynasty, Greco-Bactrians, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Parthian Empire, Indo-Parthians, Kushan Empire, Sassanids, Kidarite Huns, Hepthalites, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, British and the Russians invade, the Americans give support to the Mujahideen, (The reason was to give Russia its Vietnam, IMO that seems kinda fair) the Russians pull out and the Taliban take over. Then the Americans come in after 9/11, guns blazing and all the support that they gave to the Mujahideen was forgotten.
But also the concept of a Nobel peace prize is somewhat contradictory in itself, this is the man who gave us many of today's most used explosives, giving rise to a whole new generation of weaponry.
Fix'd for the great justice. :nervous:
Alexander the Great vs. the U.S.?
Pretty sure that that never happened. .... Yeah. Pretty sure. :P
-
NOONE has ever won in Afghanistan
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Noone
I honestly think that they should've waited a year or 4, at least until he did something. He hasn't had time to accomplish, and there are other people who have accomplished more.
Interesting site as well:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
-
*facepalm*
Post fixed, hyphen added.
Point still stands, no-one wins in Afghanistan.
-
This guy called it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ct-na7xFs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ct-na7xFs)
-
Stuart: You also forgot the Chinese and the Mongols. NO-ONE has ever won in Afghanistan, and there's been fighting there for the last thousand years.
I thought Genghis Khan ripped through that whole region salting the earth, poisoning the wells and killing everyone taller then an ox cart axle in 1219? He obliterated a fairly powerful Muslim kingdom in a fashion that the region still hasn't really recovered.
-
KAHN!!!
-
I guess the Nobel Committee forgot about Obama's stance on indefinite (and preventative) detention, and his choice not to prosecute those who used torture. I don't exactly know how they judge who should win the prize, but those seem to be real turn offs for me.
-
I guess the Nobel Committee forgot about Obama's stance on indefinite (and preventative) detention, and his choice not to prosecute those who used torture
And why exactly do you guess someting like that? :lol:
-
This is joke, right?
Is there a nobel prize giveaway I'm not aware off? What, they had too many in stock and now everything must go?
Where's the line? I gotta get me one too.
-
Well, the Nobel peace price can not be awarded if the nominee is dead... I guess they wanted to give it him now just in case he gets shot somewhere along the way.
-
Well, it is probably going to a right man, but the nomination seems little bit early.
-
ok, so we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like we might possibly be going into Iran before his term is up, the US is even more divided now that it was under Bush
Cite please?
The culture war is a myth.
It seems to be more divided than it was because the GOP went bat**** loco after Obama's victory.
We are actually pretty unified as a country.
I recall reading about an online poll about whether or not Obama should be killed. I don't remember that under the last 2 presidents. This is most divided the country has been for a generation.
-
ok, so we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like we might possibly be going into Iran before his term is up, the US is even more divided now that it was under Bush
Cite please?
The culture war is a myth.
You do know that only about 15-20% of the country identify as GOP, right?
-
I recall reading about an online poll about whether or not Obama should be killed. I don't remember that under the last 2 presidents.
Never heard of Bush huh?
-
Well, it is probably going to a right man, but the nomination seems little bit early.
Tell me my fortune, oh seer of seers. :rolleyes:
-
I'm still curious who else should get it. I see people all over the internet screaming he shouldn't have gotten it, but no one with suggestions for who got shafted.
I don't really care who gets it, but when you say "Name the person who best deserves the Peace Prize" not too many names pop into my head.
-
I'm still curious who else should get it. I see people all over the internet screaming he shouldn't have gotten it, but no one with suggestions for who got shafted.
I don't really care who gets it, but when you say "Name the person who best deserves the Peace Prize" not too many names pop into my head.
The committee should be like "NOBODY deserves it. YOU ALL SUCK!" :p
Seriously, though, it's a good point. I haven't heard anyone make a case for anyone else either.
My initial shock/fury abated a lot once I realized that the NPP committee giving prizes for purely political reasons is actually a long-standing tradition. :D Stupid, but it is consistent.
-
I'm still curious who else should get it. I see people all over the internet screaming he shouldn't have gotten it, but no one with suggestions for who got shafted.
I don't really care who gets it, but when you say "Name the person who best deserves the Peace Prize" not too many names pop into my head.
What about my grandmother? She also wishes for more peace in the world. Yet, i can't propose her for this price, and the names of those who's actually were proposed "and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later". (http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/)
So we can talk about it again in 2059.
-
I'm still curious who else should get it. I see people all over the internet screaming he shouldn't have gotten it, but no one with suggestions for who got shafted.
I don't really care who gets it, but when you say "Name the person who best deserves the Peace Prize" not too many names pop into my head.
Even Gorbachev could've gotten for at least a somewhat justificable reason.
Or one of the heads of the Democratic reform party in Myanmar. They already gave it to one.
-
I'm still curious who else should get it. I see people all over the internet screaming he shouldn't have gotten it, but no one with suggestions for who got shafted.
I don't really care who gets it, but when you say "Name the person who best deserves the Peace Prize" not too many names pop into my head.
Even Gorbachev could've gotten for at least a somewhat justificable reason.
Or one of the heads of the Democratic reform party in Myanmar. They already gave it to one.
I fail to see how any of those people are more deserving of the peace prize
-
Never heard of Bush huh?
The attacks against Bush for a long time were not nearly as vicious as what is happening now, then again it might be because of the nature of the GOP when they are on the defensive.
You do know that only about 15-20% of the country identify as GOP, right?
And yet McCain got ~45% of the popular vote.
-
Never heard of Bush huh?
The attacks against Bush for a long time were not nearly as vicious as what is happening now, then again it might be because of the nature of the GOP when they are on the defensive.
You do know that only about 15-20% of the country identify as GOP, right?
And yet McCain got ~45% of the popular vote.
edit: n/m
But GOP support != to votes McCain got, which only account for about 27% of voters in the entire USA.
-
The term is Silent Majority, I believe.
I'm still curious who else should get it. I see people all over the internet screaming he shouldn't have gotten it, but no one with suggestions for who got shafted.
I don't really care who gets it, but when you say "Name the person who best deserves the Peace Prize" not too many names pop into my head.
Even Gorbachev could've gotten for at least a somewhat justificable reason.
Or one of the heads of the Democratic reform party in Myanmar. They already gave it to one.
I fail to see how any of those people are more deserving of the peace prize
Are you joking? Really? I can't tell. :blah: Excuse me for putting this blunty, but what the **** did Obama do to deserve this? Get elected?
-
Are you joking? Really? I can't tell. :blah: Excuse me for putting this blunty, but what the **** did Obama do to deserve this? Get elected?
Did you read the press release they gave? They pretty much stated why they thought he deserved it. I'm sure you missed it in your astonishment about something I never even said, so I'll just state it again....
Here is it off Wikipedia, the most trusted source known to mankind.
According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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."
Who else meets this and does it better?
Gorby got one in '90 for his work. He should get another 20 years later for the same thing? Really?
Surely with such a travesty on the scale of this, there must be a large number of people who meet these requirements better. People can't rattle off a top 5?
-
Okay, I'm starting to believe he did deserve it.
The man's a symbol. His stand against nukes really is pretty bold.
-
Excuse me for misunderstanding. I saw "more deserving than" in your post and made the connection.
I must take issue with the second of the three points of the Nobel requirements. I would also like to point out the lack of the conjunction "or" between the major points of the requirements, and the presence of "and."
WASHINGTON – Hours after winning a Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama assembled his war council in the White House basement to talk about how many troops might be needed to right the 8-year-old Afghanistan conflict that military commanders are pressing him to escalate.
I hope you can understand my confusion/incredulity. I'm confused (changed because that sounded condescending).
-
WASHINGTON – Hours after winning a Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama assembled his war council in the White House basement to talk about how many troops might be needed to right the 8-year-old Afghanistan conflict that military commanders are pressing him to escalate.
I hope you can understand my confusion/incredulity. I'm confused (changed because that sounded condescending).
So you would say removing troops from a conflict we started and supposedly leaving those who supported us to be killed by the Taliban (you do know we are losing that war, right?) is a promotion of peace? Really?
And on another point, a lot of those troops are coming from Iraq. The army isn't getting bigger, they're just moving them!
*edit* isn't.... isn't getting bigger
-
What source is there that he is removing them? The phrase "how many troops might be needed" screams increase. Misread that.
The issue with the requirements for nomination still stand. "Abolition or reduction of standing armies" is not happening here. Related note, remember that nominations ended nine days after his inauguration, before any of these policies were set at all. (and yes, I do know that we are losing. See my posts to that effect up-thread)
-
What source is there that he is removing them? The phrase "how many troops might be needed" screams increase. Misread that.
The issue with the requirements for nomination still stand. "Abolition or reduction of standing armies" is not happening here. Related note, remember that nominations ended nine days after his inauguration, before any of these policies were set at all. (and yes, I do know that we are losing. See my posts to that effect up-thread)
The nominations ended 9 days after, they didn't pick them then. He could have done stuff meanwhile.
As for the meat of the issue, he doesn't have to remove or lower standing armies one bit. Armies can go up in fact! He just has to do the best work at trying to stop it. It just says "does work" it doesn't say "and succeeds".
I mean you have a man who is arguably "the most powerful man in the world" who wants a nuclear free world or promotes open talks with countries like Iran and North Korea or SDI......
I mean if he is so undeserving, who else? If people don't think he was the best, someone else has to be better. I would think if there were people who more deserving, someone would have named them by now.
I don't care if he gets it or not. That's not why he did those things, and that's not why I voted for him. This is essentially a popularity contest and no one wants to mention who they think is more popular.
-
The nominations ended 9 days after, they didn't pick them then. He could have done stuff meanwhile.
He was nominated for a Peace Prize before he even did anything. Anticipation of future events is (should) not (be) gound for a nomination. I will grant that someone could have used that as justification, but look at the description of why it was awarded: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (source here (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/index.html)) No specifics. What efforts? What had he done by that point? What could he have possibly done in nine days that warranted the Peace Prize? I don't think he even knew who his entire cabinet was at that point (feel free to correct me on this last sentence).
As for the meat of the issue, he doesn't have to remove or lower standing armies one bit. Armies can go up in fact! He just has to do the best work at trying to stop it. It just says "does work" it doesn't say "and succeeds".
Excuse me, but WHAT?! He is the PRESIDENT! The COMMANDER IN CHIEF! If he says to pull out, they damn well have to pull out. His best work is succeeding in stopping it, not some BS about how he's trying.
I mean if he is so undeserving, who else? If people don't think he was the best, someone else has to be better. I would think if there were people who more deserving, someone would have named them by now.
How about these guys? (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-06-gaza-peace-talks-under-way-in-egypt)
The talks with the Palestinian delegation, headed by Emad al-Alami and Mohammed Nasr from Hamas's Syrian-based political leadership, represent the first such contact since fighting began but hopes of a truce appear dim.
Sarath Fonseka, who ended the Sri Lankan Civil War?
Dimitris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat, attempting peace talks to reunite Cypress?
Those are all with a none too detailed browsing of the "2008" and "2009" entries on Wikipedia.
This is essentially a popularity contest and no one wants to mention who they think is more popular.
It should not be. Presidential elections are a popularity contest, this should be nothing of the sort. This should be recognizing people for extraordinary contributions. Being popular and not being a jackass to everyone is NOT extraordinary contribution.
-
Actually, I have to say, I think that advocating the ideas he did during his election (diplomacy, multilateralism, justice, education, science, and a nuke-free world) AND THEN GETTING ELECTED may in fact be an extraordinary contribution to peace.
-
Forgive me for my exasperation (dang, I am saying that WAY too much on this thread), but HE STILL HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING! Maybe a couple years down the road when we aren't in two wars in two separate countries, and when we DO have talks about a nuke free world with N. Korea and Iran, he could get it. As it stands, it just got thrown at him before he even did anything for saying some nice stuff and then winning a popularity contest.
Now, I'm going to leave for a couple hours to calm down.
-
I don't see how he could do anything. The Democrat propaganda machine is basically a gerbil running in a wheel; the Republican one is more like one of those stupid hummer/limo things and it ran over the gerbil. Add to that that the corporations pretty much own congress.
I'm not sure how a sudden withdrawal of troops would help the situation. If you want a reduction of standing armies you'd have to fire all those soldiers, and we've seen what happens when you fire a bunch of soldiers (see Iraq). It wouldn't help the unemployment rate either.
On the upside he hasn't invaded anyone yet.
-
I know this is late to the thread, but I have to say it...
Wait, wait, hold up - you mean the award of Nobel prizes might be POLITICALLY MOTIVATED? Heaven help us, say it ain't so! /sarcasm
Even the scientific awards have politics behind them, people. This award should come as no real surprise to anyone, whether he actually deserved it in our minds or not.
-
Forgive me for my exasperation (dang, I am saying that WAY too much on this thread), but HE STILL HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING!
He hasn't bombed Iran or North Korea......'nuff said.
-
Instead of focusing on what he hasn't done, why not focus on what Obama has done?
He's increased troops in Afghanistan.
Has not withdrawn the troops from Iraq.
He has failed to prosecute US officials involved in torture.
He continues to hold people without charge in so-called preventative detention and has tried to form a legal framework for it.
Hey hey hey! That deserves a prize! Especially the whole, looking the other way when it comes to torture. Pillar of the western world!
-
Well, I'm with you on the torture bit, but withdrawing troops from Iraq and not increasing troops in Afghanistan would both be crimes against peace.
-
Well, I'm with you on the torture bit, but withdrawing troops from Iraq and not increasing troops in Afghanistan would both be crimes against peace.
Didn't the new Iraqi leader tell the US to get out by a certain date? Or has that date not yet come to pass?
Afghanistan . . . maybe. But seriously when will Iraq be allowed to stand on its own two feet?
Then again I doubt the US will ever leave considering they've built some vatican-sized military base or embassy or something in there.
-
BTW, the nominations for the award were closed on February 1, 2009.
-
The nominations ended 9 days after, they didn't pick them then. He could have done stuff meanwhile.
He was nominated for a Peace Prize before he even did anything. Anticipation of future events is (should) not (be) gound for a nomination. I will grant that someone could have used that as justification, but look at the description of why it was awarded: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (source here (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/index.html)) No specifics. What efforts? What had he done by that point? What could he have possibly done in nine days that warranted the Peace Prize? I don't think he even knew who his entire cabinet was at that point (feel free to correct me on this last sentence).
Hey, he is a US president, they're always nominated by someone. You see, it's not the Nobel committee which nominates the people, they only get a list of nominations and then vote on them waaaay afterwards!
Seriously, out of all stuff this has to be the most inconsequential and weird. "HE WAS NOMINATED BEFORE HE DID ANYTHING AND THEN HE DID SO **** **** PISS".
Take two dates. First date is the date when the nominations are closed. The second date is the date when the nominations are voted upon. Look at these two dates and think for a while. There might even be something inbetween!
Excuse me, but WHAT?! He is the PRESIDENT! The COMMANDER IN CHIEF! If he says to pull out, they damn well have to pull out. His best work is succeeding in stopping it, not some BS about how he's trying.
Talks with Iran, reducing nuclear stockpile and, hey, did you notice that missile shield stuff and Kaliningrad just lately? And pulling out without a good plan is almost as dumb as going at the first place.
How about these guys? (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-06-gaza-peace-talks-under-way-in-egypt)
The talks with the Palestinian delegation, headed by Emad al-Alami and Mohammed Nasr from Hamas's Syrian-based political leadership, represent the first such contact since fighting began but hopes of a truce appear dim.
Sarath Fonseka, who ended the Sri Lankan Civil War?
Umm, he ended it by pretty much steamrolling the place and killing everyone, not particulary peaceful way of ending a conflict. Some intial reports were talking about like 10 000 civilian casualties during the offensive last winter. Dunno what's the real number.
Dimitris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat, attempting peace talks to reunite Cypress?
Those are all with a none too detailed browsing of the "2008" and "2009" entries on Wikipedia.
It should not be. Presidential elections are a popularity contest, this should be nothing of the sort. This should be recognizing people for extraordinary contributions. Being popular and not being a jackass to everyone is NOT extraordinary contribution.
Although Obama has failed to act on quite a few of his domestic policies, his foreign policy has been quite successful in both dialogue and a honest attempt to reduce nuclear weapons and try to solve several probelms diplomatically. Americans don't always understand that his position abroad is much different from his domestic standing, and he is very influential and remarkably peaceful for such a powerful man - all of which probably played a significant role in his nomination. There is certainly a lot more than "Not Bush" in Obama's popularity.
-
One thing he has done is that he changed the missile shield policy. It is funny how quickly things change. It seems he has drastically improved the international reputation of US.
I think the Nobel Prize should be seen as the committee rewarding US people of changing the policy (by electing Obama) towards what the committee perceives as better.
-
Some people are just not seeing the light.
1. "He didn't do anything!"
He doesn't have to do anything. If he talks with Iran, North Korea, takes down SDI, starts dismantling nuclear weapons... whatever. That's it. That's all he has to do.
The award isn't given to the person who gets peace, it's given to the person who tries for peace. People keep looking for results in what is possibly the biggest Participation Prize ever.
2. "He doesn't deserve it!"
Name someone else. The names Scotty gave were almost funny.
Of all the people who came in here to say he didn't deserve it, only two people have come in and given another name. And one of them named people who already got one.
-
Yeah, well... what are they going to do if after four years of office Obama has ensured peace for our time, solved the energy problems, cured cancer and invented whiter teeth for everyone?
Give him a Nobel Peace Prize with Oak Leaves? :lol:
-
Some people are just not seeing the light.
1. "He didn't do anything!"
He doesn't have to do anything. If he talks with Iran, North Korea, takes down SDI, starts dismantling nuclear weapons... whatever. That's it. That's all he has to do.
Everyone talked with Iran and North Korea.
The ballistic shield in Europe being abandoned? No surprise there - they now have airborne lasers, the interceptor missiles are not needed anymore.
Not to mention that it really has little to do with world piece.
2. "He doesn't deserve it!"
Name someone else. The names Scotty gave were almost funny.
Of all the people who came in here to say he didn't deserve it, only two people have come in and given another name. And one of them named people who already got one.
I don't have to name someone else. It's not my job to propose canditates. I can, however, comment when those who's job it was don't do it right.
-
I think the drug cartels should get a nobel peace-prize, if it wasn't for them, there'd be a lot of bored soldiers sitting round in third world countries, and that's never a good mixture ;)
-
Besides, he did do something. I said it in my first post, but apparently nobody can read.
He defeated the Republican party and their commitment to the unilateral use of violence to solve world problems.
That right there, reining in the world's only remaining superpower on the use of force without consensus as to its need, is more than some previous winners of the prize have done.
-
Besides, he did do something. I said it in my first post, but apparently nobody can read.
He defeated the Republican party and their commitment to the unilateral use of violence to solve world problems.
That right there, reining in the world's only remaining superpower on the use of force without consensus as to its need, is more than some previous winners of the prize have done.
No, I said that too. I concur.
-
Some people are just not seeing the light.
1. "He didn't do anything!"
He doesn't have to do anything. If he talks with Iran, North Korea, takes down SDI, starts dismantling nuclear weapons... whatever. That's it. That's all he has to do.
Everyone talked with Iran and North Korea.
The ballistic shield in Europe being abandoned? No surprise there - they now have airborne lasers, the interceptor missiles are not needed anymore.
Not to mention that it really has little to do with world piece.
Yea we always talked with Iran. Bush was on the phone with them all the time :rolleyes:
2. "He doesn't deserve it!"
Name someone else. The names Scotty gave were almost funny.
Of all the people who came in here to say he didn't deserve it, only two people have come in and given another name. And one of them named people who already got one.
I don't have to name someone else. It's not my job to propose canditates. I can, however, comment when those who's job it was don't do it right.
Yea you do. If you don't know anyone better, what claim can you make that he isn't the best one? Just some sort of hypothetical guy better than him?
I mean really, how do you know he isn't the best if you can't think of anyone better?
-
Besides, he did do something. I said it in my first post, but apparently nobody can read.
He defeated the Republican party and their commitment to the unilateral use of violence to solve world problems.
That right there, reining in the world's only remaining superpower on the use of force without consensus as to its need, is more than some previous winners of the prize have done.
Ok, so you'd rather have a multilateral milk drinkers talking about problems instead of actually trying to fix them... :rolleyes:
Such as that is why I don't know how many thousands have died in Dharfur and continue to do so, meanwhile the bloody, thrice damned, waste of space United Nations has passed how many resolutions saying it's not genocide, just to keep the 4th rate tin-pot dictators from griping and complaining and mocking them.
Hate to break it to you, but having the moral high ground means having to fight for those who can't from time to time.
Freedom isn't free, it requires blood sacrifice from time to time to reinforce it's power.
-
Ok, so you'd rather have a multilateral milk drinkers talking about problems instead of actually trying to fix them... :rolleyes:
Yea! Don't "talk" about problems! Real men solve problems with force! Clearly Iraq and Afghanistan showed how easily force can solve problems.
Such as that is why I don't know how many thousands have died in Dharfur and continue to do so, meanwhile the bloody, thrice damned, waste of space United Nations has passed how many resolutions saying it's not genocide, just to keep the 4th rate tin-pot dictators from griping and complaining and mocking them.
What does what the UN isn't doing have any bearing on what we're talking about now?
Hate to break it to you, but having the moral high ground means having to fight for those who can't from time to time.
Freedom isn't free, it requires blood sacrifice from time to time to reinforce it's power.
And the mark of promoting peace is not using that force all the time. Or did you just stumble into talking points about us losing power?
-
Besides, he did do something. I said it in my first post, but apparently nobody can read.
He defeated the Republican party and their commitment to the unilateral use of violence to solve world problems.
That right there, reining in the world's only remaining superpower on the use of force without consensus as to its need, is more than some previous winners of the prize have done.
Ok, so you'd rather have a multilateral milk drinkers talking about problems instead of actually trying to fix them... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah Operation Iraqi Freedom, big thumbs up Liberator. We certainly showed those milk drinking nay sayers that was a superb idea. Over 4000 US servicemen and women dead, not to mention upwards of eighty five thousand Iraqi civilian casualties. But hey we did manage to topple some jackass dictator who had been a military non entity since 19 friggen 90. Not to mention turn a relatively stable country into the damn MiddleEast version of the Balkans with no bloody end in site. Way to ****ing go!
-
Lib, seriously. At this point, you practically refute yourself.
-
Yeah, well... what are they going to do if after four years of office Obama has ensured peace for our time, solved the energy problems, cured cancer and invented whiter teeth for everyone?
Give him a Nobel Peace Prize with Oak Leaves? :lol:
Well, they can give it to him even if he won't do anything at all. There will always be a very serious argument if there was actually a better one for it :lol:
-
I don't have to name someone else. It's not my job to propose canditates. I can, however, comment when those who's job it was don't do it right.
Yeah, actually, you do. Otherwise all you're doing is going on a tirade where you can't support your claims with examp--
Oh wait...
-
What the hell is wrong with drinking milk?
-
What the hell is wrong with drinking milk?
It's the drink of the liberal elitist scum. Drink Coke!
-
But... milk is an important source of calcium compounds and various other vitamins and minerals...
-
But... milk is an important source of calcium compounds and various other vitamins and minerals...
Just the milk agenda of the liberal media. Sounds like a bunch of gobbledygook.
-
But... milk is an important source of calcium compounds and various other vitamins and minerals...
sounds very suspicious to me
-
Yeah, actually, you do. Otherwise all you're doing is going on a tirade where you can't support your claims with examp--
Oh wait...
No, actually I don't.
There are people better suited for the award. Lots of them. You got smaller-scale conflict all around the world and people working to stop them.
-
No, actually I don't.
There are people better suited for the award. Lots of them. You got smaller-scale conflict all around the world and people working to stop them.
Reading this artful phrasing, I can't help but be reminded of that one closeted guy in everyone's college dorm who's had "lots of girlfriends" "back in his hometown."
-
are you honestly suggesting that he won by default? because if your argument is 'there was no one better' when you can't tell me what good he has done, then that's basically what you are saying.
-
Who? Me? I don't particularly care. Any peace prize that was given to Henry Kissinger is questionable in my book, and there are more pressing matters to debate right now. I just think the people who are so adamantly against it are making a train wreck of their argument.
-
Reading this artful phrasing, I can't help but be reminded of that one closeted guy in everyone's college dorm who's had "lots of girlfriends" "back in his hometown."
I can't help but be reminded of a freind of mine who demanded proof for everything - even the most mundane and obvious stuff.
Either way, it's a sad, sad word if there really is no better candidate for the prize than Obama.
-
Yeah, actually, you do. Otherwise all you're doing is going on a tirade where you can't support your claims with examp--
Oh wait...
No, actually I don't.
There are people better suited for the award. Lots of them.
So prove it by naming a few. Problem solved and probably takes only a minute of your time unlike all this pointless dancing around the simple question of whether you're right or not because you refuse to tell why you are right.
-
So prove it by naming a few. Problem solved and probably takes only a minute of your time unlike all this pointless dancing around the simple question of whether you're right or not because you refuse to tell why you are right.
Sima Samar
In 2002, Sima Samar became the first women's affairs minister in Afghanistan's post-Taliban interim government. Prior to her appointment, Samar had dedicated her life to the preservation of basic rights for women and girls in Afghanistan. She fled her country in 1984 during the Soviet ocupation and moved to the border town of Quetta, Pakistan, where she founded the Shuhada Organization to support the education and health needs of Afghan women and girls. With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs, even as she continued to run her clinics and schools. But her persistent calls for equality and justice attracted the attention of Afghanistan's powerful religious leaders, who still saw no place for women in Afghan public life. She was taunted by male colleagues, and she began to receive thinly veiled death threats from Islamic conservatives hoping to silence her. She was ultimately forced to step down from her cabinet post, which was left unfilled. She subsequently was offered a non-cabinet position chairing the Independent Afghanistan Human Rights Commission, a position she still holds. ]http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Sima+Samar/ (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Sima+Samar/[/i)[/url]
Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence. http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics/who-did-obama-beat-to-win-his-nobel-prize/ (http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics/who-did-obama-beat-to-win-his-nobel-prize/)
Etcetera . . .
-
So prove it by naming a few. Problem solved and probably takes only a minute of your time unlike all this pointless dancing around the simple question of whether you're right or not because you refuse to tell why you are right.
Sima Samar
In 2002, Sima Samar became the first women's affairs minister in Afghanistan's post-Taliban interim government. Prior to her appointment, Samar had dedicated her life to the preservation of basic rights for women and girls in Afghanistan. She fled her country in 1984 during the Soviet ocupation and moved to the border town of Quetta, Pakistan, where she founded the Shuhada Organization to support the education and health needs of Afghan women and girls. With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs, even as she continued to run her clinics and schools. But her persistent calls for equality and justice attracted the attention of Afghanistan's powerful religious leaders, who still saw no place for women in Afghan public life. She was taunted by male colleagues, and she began to receive thinly veiled death threats from Islamic conservatives hoping to silence her. She was ultimately forced to step down from her cabinet post, which was left unfilled. She subsequently was offered a non-cabinet position chairing the Independent Afghanistan Human Rights Commission, a position she still holds. ]http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Sima+Samar/ (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/Sima+Samar/[/i)[/url]
Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence. http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics/who-did-obama-beat-to-win-his-nobel-prize/ (http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics/who-did-obama-beat-to-win-his-nobel-prize/)
Etcetera . . .
How do either of those people meet the qualifications listed for the peace prize?
"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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.""
It looked like you just picked womens rights leaders from the list and hoped we wouldn't notice the difference.
That list is almost sad.
-
Only pople with BIG influence and/or political power can hope to get that prize.
That said, pretty much all leaders talk about peace.
-
Only people with BIG influence and/or political power can hope to get that prize.
That said, pretty much all leaders talk about peace.
A true statement. Find another leader who did what Obama did and/or more and we'll have ourselves a nice ol' viewing.
-
How do either of those people meet the qualifications listed for the peace prize?
"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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.""
It looked like you just picked womens rights leaders from the list and hoped we wouldn't notice the difference.
That list is almost sad.
Regardless of the original intent there have been many winners who have fostered peace and human rights within single nations:
http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html (http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html)
Mother Theresa for example has won the nobel peace prize. Do you think this was undeserved? Advocating human rights is as much a pursuit of peace as idle talk. There is PRECEDENCE for human rights supporters. The Afghan woman for example was risking her life, doing real work in Afghanistan before 9/11 and the west woke up and gave a damn.
You see the thing is, every US leader that talks about nuclear arms reduction is full of **** in my opinion because every one says "oh, let's get rid of nuclear arms together". Well people lead by setting an example, if a US president was really serious about nuclear arms reduction they'd get rid of their whole stockpile unilaterally and then advocate others to do the same. I hate this half-hearted bull**** that people present as some real attempt. The US and USSR have been reducing stock piles for years and they still have enough to blow the world apart many times over.
-
How do either of those people meet the qualifications listed for the peace prize?
"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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.""
It looked like you just picked womens rights leaders from the list and hoped we wouldn't notice the difference.
That list is almost sad.
Regardless of the original intent there have been many winners who have fostered peace and human rights within single nations:
http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html (http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html)
Mother Theresa for example has won the nobel peace prize. Do you think this was undeserved? Advocating human rights is as much a pursuit of peace as idle talk. There is PRECEDENCE for human rights supporters. The Afghan woman for example was risking her life, doing real work in Afghanistan before 9/11 and the west woke up and gave a damn.
You see the thing is, every US leader that talks about nuclear arms reduction is full of **** in my opinion because every one says "oh, let's get rid of nuclear arms together". Well people lead by setting an example, if a US president was really serious about nuclear arms reduction they'd get rid of their whole stockpile unilaterally and then advocate others to do the same. I hate this half-hearted bull**** that people present as some real attempt. The US and USSR have been reducing stock piles for years and they still have enough to blow the world apart many times over.
This is pretty good, and by good I mean funny.
The reason it's funny is you've pretty much shot yourself in the foot here. You've basically destroyed any premise of the prize being based on the description given.
You've basically said that the winner can have almost nothing to do with what it's supposed to be and you're ok with that. But a guy who DOES meet the requirements doesn't live up to your expectations and we should give it to people who, by your own definition, don't really meet the requirements.
You would have been better off arguing for a strict interpretation of the prize. Now that's its gone, any argument about Obama not living up to it are now gone.
-
This is pretty good, and by good I mean funny.
The reason it's funny is you've pretty much shot yourself in the foot here. You've basically destroyed any premise of the prize being based on the description given.
You've basically said that the winner can have almost nothing to do with what it's supposed to be and you're ok with that. But a guy who DOES meet the requirements doesn't live up to your expectations and we should give it to people who, by your own definition, don't really meet the requirements.
You would have been better off arguing for a strict interpretation of the prize. Now that's its gone, any argument about Obama not living up to it are now gone.
The difference between the precedence-setters and Obama is that they have accomplished something real and substantial on the ground. Not talked. Some have devoted years of their lives to their pursuit, not 9 months. What has Obama accomplished?
The prize is premature. The Nobel committee is simply jumping on the Obama fan-wagon (I think you crammed in there months ago yourself).
-
This is pretty good, and by good I mean funny.
The reason it's funny is you've pretty much shot yourself in the foot here. You've basically destroyed any premise of the prize being based on the description given.
You've basically said that the winner can have almost nothing to do with what it's supposed to be and you're ok with that. But a guy who DOES meet the requirements doesn't live up to your expectations and we should give it to people who, by your own definition, don't really meet the requirements.
You would have been better off arguing for a strict interpretation of the prize. Now that's its gone, any argument about Obama not living up to it are now gone.
The difference between the precedence-setters and Obama is that they have accomplished something real and substantial on the ground. Not talked. Some have devoted years of their lives to their pursuit, not 9 months. What has Obama accomplished?
He met the requirements given by the Nobel Prize Committee. They stated what he did to earn it. We've spent time in this thread discussing exactly what he did to get it.
You're in kind of a weird position. Which are they supposed to follow? The requirements set up or another set based on whatever they feel like at the time? Either way you still can't argue against him.
You got caught trying to come up with someone who met it better than him, and when that didn't work out you tried to loosen the requirements, which was the whole argument to begin with.
So the precedent setters did stuff, so they got the award even though they didn't exactly meet the requirements? That's great. So now Obama has to meet the requirements AND do stuff? He has to do both when everyone else was one or the other?
I mean we already listed what he did, do you really want to copy paste another one?
The prize is premature. The Nobel committee is simply jumping on the Obama fan-wagon (I think you crammed in there months ago yourself).
Oh I jumped on before he won the nomination, before the campaign really started. But I was unaware that liking what a guy does is some kind of problem.
-
You got caught trying to come up with someone who met it better than him, and when that didn't work out you tried to loosen the requirements, which was the whole argument to begin with.
So the precedent setters did stuff, so they got the award even though they didn't exactly meet the requirements? That's great. So now Obama has to meet the requirements AND do stuff? He has to do both when everyone else was one or the other?
Everyone else was one or the other? Prove it.
I love arguments were one side assumes they have to prove nothing.
Has Obama reduced standing armies? Oh no, he actually wants to increase military spending by 20Billion dollars http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3965202 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3965202). Meanwhile he shifts troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
In any case I don't really care, the award is given whether it's deserved or not. We'll see if Obama actually follows through with any of his lofty, ambigous promises for change.
-
If you think they're lofty and ambiguous you just haven't done your research. (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/)
-
It's the drink of the liberal elitist scum. Drink Coke!
Conclusive Proof:
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/9/4/c9465457795603b12f371d8bc864d0e0.jpg
-
You got caught trying to come up with someone who met it better than him, and when that didn't work out you tried to loosen the requirements, which was the whole argument to begin with.
So the precedent setters did stuff, so they got the award even though they didn't exactly meet the requirements? That's great. So now Obama has to meet the requirements AND do stuff? He has to do both when everyone else was one or the other?
Everyone else was one or the other? Prove it.
I love arguments were one side assumes they have to prove nothing.
Wait, so now you're saying they did do both? What did Mother Theresa do to lower the size of standing armies? Oh wait, nothing?
You mean the people you cited as getting the Nobel Peace Prize that didn't really meet the qualifications because of other stuff they did didn't meet the original qualifications? The hell you say.
Let me sum it up again.
Obama has done exactly what the Nobel prize people have in their wants, and they say as much in the release. The other people you've named who got it for other reasons are irrelevant. If anything, it helps bolster the case for Obama because then you can argue he doesn't need to fulfill all the parts because there are people who got it who didn't fill ANY.
Has Obama reduced standing armies? Oh no, he actually wants to increase military spending by 20Billion dollars http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3965202 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3965202). Meanwhile he shifts troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Again, he doesn't have to. All he has to do is work on it. Cutting down SDI and not sending troops to places like North Korea, Georgia or Honduras is plenty. Or can you name someone else who cut the size of armies?
They picked him, they said why they picked him. It falls well within the requirements they were asking for and no one can really come up with a better winner. To me this just sounds like people upset at Obama for anything.
-
I can't help but be reminded of a freind of mine who demanded proof for everything - even the most mundane and obvious stuff.
Fantastic, the "DRRRRR YOURE AN IDIOT IT'S SO OBVIOUS" defense.
Trash, do you actually believe half the stuff you say, or do you just troll and try to set a monkey record?
-
Again, he doesn't have to. All he has to do is work on it. Cutting down SDI and not sending troops to places like North Korea, Georgia or Honduras is plenty. Or can you name someone else who cut the size of armies?
Oh wait, wait, so he should get a prize for not invading North Korea?
"Hey America, please don't expand your empire! We'll give you a trophy if you don't!"
Hey let's give Chamberlin a peace prize posthumously for the Munich Agreement while we're at it.
And as for cutting the size of armies, I'm sure Jean Chretien and the federal Liberals did their part back in the day. Hahahah. even disbanded a whole regiment because of the Somalia affair.
-
I can't help but be reminded of a freind of mine who demanded proof for everything - even the most mundane and obvious stuff.
Fantastic, the "DRRRRR YOURE AN IDIOT IT'S SO OBVIOUS" defense.
Trash, do you actually believe half the stuff you say, or do you just troll and try to set a monkey record?
No, this is the same argument being used for some time now.
Obama is bad, so anything he does or supports is bad. We aren't sure why it's bad or what would be good in that case, but he has to be wrong. It's been used in the health care talk, Olympics, GM, lots of stuff.
Talk to anyone who opposes Obama about a plan of his and they will shoot it down. Ask for a competing plan and be met with blank stares.
-
Again, he doesn't have to. All he has to do is work on it. Cutting down SDI and not sending troops to places like North Korea, Georgia or Honduras is plenty. Or can you name someone else who cut the size of armies?
Oh wait, wait, so he should get a prize for not invading North Korea?
"Hey America, please don't expand your empire! We'll give you a trophy if you don't!"
Hey let's give Chamberlin a peace prize posthumously for the Munich Agreement while we're at it.
Yes? Why is that hard for you to understand. Coming from a very aggressive approach like Bush's to a more conciliatory and diplomatic one like Obama. That's what they want. They don't care what you think is the best option for dealing with these situations. They gave him the award based on what they want.
-
Democrats Suck
there I said it.
-
You mean the people you cited as getting the Nobel Peace Prize that didn't really meet the qualifications because of other stuff they did didn't meet the original qualifications? The hell you say.
Let me sum it up again.
Obama has done exactly what the Nobel prize people have in their wants, and they say as much in the release. The other people you've named who got it for other reasons are irrelevant. If anything, it helps bolster the case for Obama because then you can argue he doesn't need to fulfill all the parts because there are people who got it who didn't fill ANY.
My problem with it isn't so much "he doesn't deserve it" as that the prize seems very premature. By any measure, Obama's most influential impacts are still to come. It's like awarding the Heisman trophy to next year's starting quarterback who has yet to play a game, just because he looks so good in practice and has generated so much buzz. Isn't it better to give him a chance to prove himself? (I don't buy the idea that beating McCain/Palin is a Nobel-worthy feat).
Regardless, what's done is done. It isn't Obama's fault, and I thought he handled the situation as well as could be expected. Criticizing him for it is stupid, but some will do it anyway, and the extra noise will just make it harder for him to get his job done. I don't believe the prize committee did Obama any favors with this prize, despite their intentions. But we'll see how it plays out: I could be wrong. :)
-
You mean the people you cited as getting the Nobel Peace Prize that didn't really meet the qualifications because of other stuff they did didn't meet the original qualifications? The hell you say.
Let me sum it up again.
Obama has done exactly what the Nobel prize people have in their wants, and they say as much in the release. The other people you've named who got it for other reasons are irrelevant. If anything, it helps bolster the case for Obama because then you can argue he doesn't need to fulfill all the parts because there are people who got it who didn't fill ANY.
My problem with it isn't so much "he doesn't deserve it" as that the prize seems very premature. By any measure, Obama's most influential impacts are still to come. It's like awarding the Heisman trophy to next year's starting quarterback who has yet to play a game, just because he looks so good in practice and has generated so much buzz. Isn't it better to give him a chance to prove himself? (I don't buy the idea that beating McCain/Palin is a Nobel-worthy feat).
Regardless, what's done is done. It isn't Obama's fault, and I thought he handled the situation as well as could be expected. Criticizing him for it is stupid, but some will do it anyway, and the extra noise will just make it harder for him to get his job done. I don't believe the prize committee did Obama any favors with this prize, despite their intentions. But we'll see how it plays out: I could be wrong. :)
Except the Heisman is awarded to the player who does the best. Obama can fail miserably at all his efforts, but as long as he makes the best or most efforts, he has done what the Nobel people ask.
That's what I mean by looking for success. It's not a success award, it's basically a participation award. Whoever tries the hardest wins, whether or not it actually works.
-
Instead of focusing on what he hasn't done, why not focus on what Obama has done?
He's increased troops in Afghanistan.
Has not withdrawn the troops from Iraq.
He has failed to prosecute US officials involved in torture.
He continues to hold people without charge in so-called preventative detention and has tried to form a legal framework for it.
Hey hey hey! That deserves a prize! Especially the whole, looking the other way when it comes to torture. Pillar of the western world!
The bolded is an area where Obama is worse than Bush. I mean, forget the two wars he's yet to end for a minute. Torture? Failure to prosecute war criminals whom committed torture? Indefinite and prevantitive detention? Disregarding essential protections to accomplish the detention? Broadening extraordinary rendition?
If the Nobel Prize for Peace wants to ignore this in how they want to give the award, well, that's their right. If that isn't important in their considerations, then fine, I'll conceed that he deserved the award, since they're the ones who make the rules on achieving it.
But in my view, this is a pretty poor person to give a peace award to, even if they're awarding it based on intent and merit. I mean, we have people that have committed to great works and aren't responsible for civil rights abuses, like Piedad Cordoba or Simi Samar.
-
My problem with it isn't so much "he doesn't deserve it" as that the prize seems very premature. By any measure, Obama's most influential impacts are still to come. It's like awarding the Heisman trophy to next year's starting quarterback who has yet to play a game, just because he looks so good in practice and has generated so much buzz. Isn't it better to give him a chance to prove himself? (I don't buy the idea that beating McCain/Palin is a Nobel-worthy feat).
Yeah, I mean, easing tensions with Russia and getting rid of tactical nuclear missiles inside EU areas, working towards reducing nuclear stockpiles and diplomatically engaging Iran is "nothing".
Those things are pretty big and influential and have been mentioned in this thread like 4 times now. They're clearly in line with what the NC wanted.
-
My problem with it isn't so much "he doesn't deserve it" as that the prize seems very premature. By any measure, Obama's most influential impacts are still to come. It's like awarding the Heisman trophy to next year's starting quarterback who has yet to play a game, just because he looks so good in practice and has generated so much buzz. Isn't it better to give him a chance to prove himself? (I don't buy the idea that beating McCain/Palin is a Nobel-worthy feat).
Yeah, I mean, easing tensions with Russia and getting rid of tactical nuclear missiles inside EU areas, working towards reducing nuclear stockpiles and diplomatically engaging Iran is "nothing".
Those things are pretty big and influential and have been mentioned in this thread like 4 times now. They're clearly in line with what the NC wanted.
You're right, those are accomplishments, but they're still in their early stages. I agree that he's definitely moving in the right direction, but, to go with my analogy a bit further, it's still the beginning of the season. :)
I guess I just find it shoddy to recognize someone for starting to do something when they haven't had a chance to finish yet. If I were Obama, I'd feel like someone handed me a medal after running the first mile of the Marathon (sports analogy again :p). Sure, I still intend to finish, but the early reward is kind of hollow, and cheapened by being applied too casually.
Admittedly, I can't present any better candidates myself (or worse ones, for that matter :p), so maybe he really was the best available choice. I still find the whole affair unsatisfying, though.
-
Yeah, I mean, easing tensions with Russia and getting rid of tactical nuclear missiles inside EU areas, working towards reducing nuclear stockpiles and diplomatically engaging Iran is "nothing".
Those things are pretty big and influential and have been mentioned in this thread like 4 times now. They're clearly in line with what the NC wanted.
nominations for the Nobel peace prize closed 11 days after his official inauguration.
he got the award for being a black democrat.
-
I strongly dislike the direction you're going here. Your accusation reeks of the idea that Obama is an affirmative action president who received handouts based on his race.
You should learn from those, like Sushi, who hear out the arguments of the other side and respond cogently rather than simply regurgitating dogma. If you did that, then you might not find yourself arguing against points already addressed a dozen times in this thread.
While I'm still not sure I believe Obama even deserved the prize, I think it completely improper to level that kind of racially founded accusation.
-
I strongly dislike the direction you're going here. Your accusation reeks of the idea that Obama is an affirmative action president who received handouts based on his race.
I don't believe that. I believe Obama won the election because he was a democrat, nothing to do with his race.
the nobel prize on the other hand....
well, then again, he might have won it just for being a popular democrat. Al Gore won a nobel prize for funding a movie.
-
The thread has already presented several more likely explanations.
-
Ugh.
Alright, he was nominated in February. No, he hadn't actually accomplished anything by then, but the vote didn't take place until October. That's damn near 8 months of accomplishments to look over.
And since no one can be bothered to actually look up a list of the candidates, here's the Wikipedia article:
There were a total of 205 nominations for the award. Other nominees, including civil rights activists in China and Afghanistan, as well as African politicians, Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba,[9][10] Afghanistan's Sima Samar,[9] Chinese dissident Hu Jia, and Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Morgan Tsvangirai, had been regarded as pre-announcement favorites for the award.[2]
Desmond Tutu hadn't succeeded in bringing down apartheid in 1984; the German resistance (Carl von Ossietzky in particular) never succeeded in toppling the Nazi regime; Aung San Suu Kyi never toppled the Burmese junta; and Shirin Ebadi hasn't caused the Iranian regime to collapse.
So yeah! These guys were preemptively given their awards. Hell, some of them never really accomplished anything! **** what they stood for--bastions of hope and symbols of freedom and justice--they never ACCOMPLISHED anything! Take it away!
-
Yeah, I mean, easing tensions with Russia and getting rid of tactical nuclear missiles inside EU areas, working towards reducing nuclear stockpiles and diplomatically engaging Iran is "nothing".
Those things are pretty big and influential and have been mentioned in this thread like 4 times now. They're clearly in line with what the NC wanted.
nominations for the Nobel peace prize closed 11 days after his official inauguration.
he got the award for being a black democrat.
Don't you even read the thread?
Guess who did NOT nominate Obama as a candidate?
Take a wild guess!
-
I get the feeling the only people fighting against it instead of "I don't know" (a reasonable stand) are just reacting because it's Obama.
-
You're right, those are accomplishments, but they're still in their early stages. I agree that he's definitely moving in the right direction, but, to go with my analogy a bit further, it's still the beginning of the season. :)
"Beginning of the season" has nothing to do with whether the accomplishments are, you know, accomplishments or not. Besides Russia already suspended their Kaliningrad missile plan, Obama already ditched the missile base program in Central Europe and he has already taken steps on the other parts. What else do you want - nuclear-free Europe before you're willing to cut him some slack? You just outright dismissed whatever he has done - completely in the sense of NPP committee! - as "beginning", but guess what history is?
I guess I just find it shoddy to recognize someone for starting to do something when they haven't had a chance to finish yet. If I were Obama, I'd feel like someone handed me a medal after running the first mile of the Marathon (sports analogy again :p). Sure, I still intend to finish, but the early reward is kind of hollow, and cheapened by being applied too casually.
Admittedly, I can't present any better candidates myself (or worse ones, for that matter :p), so maybe he really was the best available choice. I still find the whole affair unsatisfying, though.
I am not supporting Obama's prize, I just often find the vocal opponents' arguments lacking or intellectually dishonest.
[/quote]
-
Bah... That's a lot of text to tackle...
Let's start, shall we?
1. I have no idea why Obama was elected. I don't really care. Maybe it was because of his political program. Maybe it was his charisma. Maybe it was because he was black. If even taking that possibility into consideration is considered racist, then I'm a racist and I'll die happy.
2. When you look at some of hte others who won the Nobel piece prize - they dedicated their lives to doing good and promoting peace. They usually recieved the prize in their autumn years and after much hardship. Tehy all suffered for hteir conviction. Dalai-Lama, Mathatma Ghandi, Mother Theresea, etc..
Obama did nothing yet. It's too early for a prize. Not because he's Obama, but because he really needs time to prove his DEDICATION.
3. As I said before, removing hte missiel shiled is no sacrifice for peeace. The missile defense was moved in the air - the new laser-equipped 747's are taking over the job of static missile bases.
Not that making a missile DEFENSE system is a war act, mind you.
-
No, the laser-equipped 747s aren't doing crap, because they won't be ready for years. The Navy is allegedly taking over.
-
I thought they scrapped the whole idea because they just didn't work.
-
Don't you read the news? The prototype was a complete success.
Also, not installing equipment you dont' really need is not what I would consider a great effort for world peace.
-
I thought they scrapped it because it was too expensive.
-
Nope, they plan on building a fleet. Several have been ordered AFAIK.
-
Nope, they plan on building a fleet. Several have been ordered AFAIK.
Which is why it's not going to be ready for years.
-
There's one that's operational and doin tests out over California. Gates and Obama want to cut it since it's too costly and the USAF is focusing its attention elsewhere now.
-
Don't you read the news? The prototype was a complete success.
[glados voice]I'm making a note here: huge success[/glados voice]
-
You have to be within 300 miles of a hostile missile base to make it work so far, because it can only track the target and engage successfully in the ascent stage, IIRC. This means it's only really useful in...Korea.
The SM-3 can engage a ballistic missile in any stage of flight at about the same distance and is rather less tempermental than the YAL. The Navy took the mission.
-
BREAKING NEWS: This just in!!! Obama wins the Heisman Trophy after watching a college football game!!!
-
As a completely sarcastic remark, that was pretty funny.
-
It was actually because of this whole fiasco that I finally learned what the Heisman Trophy is.
-
The best one I've seen is " This Sunday, the Pope will canonize five new saints, including one from Hawaii. Wait, what? After only eight months in office?"
-
ERm...the conclave decides on the saints, not the Pope. The Pople does the canonizing only.
It's basicly like a senate making a decision and the president putting his John Hancock on the bill.
-
John Hancock was never President.
-
John Hancock was never President.
That's...not what he meant.
-
John Hancock was never President.
John Hancock = slang for signature.
To put it more simple, the Pope does not decide on the saints alone. It usually takes several years (sometimes even decades) of deliberation before someone is made a saint.
-
ERm...the conclave decides on the saints, not the Pope. The Pople does the canonizing only.
It's basicly like a senate making a decision and the president putting his John Hancock on the bill.
Blue Lion only said 'canonizing' so I'm not sure where the issue is.
-
John Hancock was never President.
John Hancock = slang for signature.
To put it more simple, the Pope does not decide on the saints alone. It usually takes several years (sometimes even decades) of deliberation before someone is made a saint.
Grrrrr. My attempt to even further derail this thread has been thwarted.
-
Canonizing is to induct a new person into sainthood. It has nothing to do with the Pope's decision, and it is all the conclave. The analogy falls apart when you hit that part, but Blue Lion was trying to be funny (it's good enough to try).
-
The Pope however has considerable influence over the conclave.
Or did you think it was a coincedence John Paul II managed to canonize more people than all his predecessors combined?
-
It was a joke people