[Akalabeth Angel]

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. 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.

[General Battuta]

If you think they're lofty and ambiguous you just haven't done your research.

[Sushi]

It's the drink of the liberal elitist scum. Drink Coke!

Conclusive Proof:

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/9/4/c9465457795603b12f371d8bc864d0e0.jpg

[Blue Lion]

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. 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.

[Nuclear1]

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?

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Topgun]

Democrats Suck


there I said it.

[Sushi]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Ioustinos]

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.

[Janos]

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.

[Sushi]

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 ). 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 ), so maybe he really was the best available choice. I still find the whole affair unsatisfying, though.

[Topgun]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Topgun]

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.

[General Battuta]

The thread has already presented several more likely explanations.

[Nuclear1]

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!

[Janos]

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!