[Dilmah G]

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?

[BloodEagle]

Well, it is probably going to a right man, but the nomination seems little bit early.

Tell me my fortune, oh seer of seers. 

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Sushi]

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!"

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. Stupid, but it is consistent.

[peterv]

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.
 

[Ioustinos]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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

[Kosh]

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.

[Janos]

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.

[Scotty]

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.   Excuse me for putting this blunty, but what the **** did Obama do to deserve this?  Get elected?

[Blue Lion]

Are you joking?  Really?  I can't tell.   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?

[General Battuta]

Okay, I'm starting to believe he did deserve it.

The man's a symbol. His stand against nukes really is pretty bold.

[Scotty]

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).

[Blue Lion]

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

[Scotty]

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)

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Scotty]

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)  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?

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Spicious]

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.