Did Obama deserve the Nobel Peace prize?

[Rart]

So did he deserve it? How deserving is it when even Americans find it controversial? Did he simply win it for "not being Bush"?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

[ahctlucabbuS]

It's as Mr. Obama himself put it, a prize to stimulate the momentum. As such it's very much deserving, considering the potential for human actions by this administration.

[Burnsy]

What a complete joke... Nominations in 12 days after he took office... what exactly did he do in 12 days as US President... totally undermines the efforts of previous winners.

[MaxOverlord]

no

[Skiz]

what exactly did he do in 12 days as US President... totally undermines the efforts of previous winners.

http://justifiedright.typepad.com/

So Obama gets the Nobel Prize for what intends to do? :blink:

It's no secret that you have to be part of that grouping of folks to be in line for the Nobel Prize, and that it's distinguished name has been plummeting for decades but, nominating a man who has been in office for 12 days, for his ideals is silly. None of which has he been able to complete by the way.

Just an interesting thing I heard on the radio today; a list of people who were nominated previously but were passed up: Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Pope John Paul II, Mahatma Gandhi (was nominated seven times)... there were many, but that's all I can remember.

[cinephilia]

ok, everyone knows that Nobel Prizes have always been a joke... but seriously, this one is just too much.

[sumvell]

NO WAY!!!! this is an absolute fraud.

[Busyman]

Hell NO.

[pone44]

No! He is not deserving of any sort of prize. The economy is plunging and we are continuing to fight in the middle east. A peace prize for sending more troops to the middle east and also flying around in his private jet using taxpayers money. Maybe he should start worrying about more important things, rather than the summer Olympics in Chicago. His priories are not the same as when he was making all those promises to the country. Same as any other politician. I really never believe anything they say. Most are all hacks. Telling people what they want to hear, but never following through with what they say. I know certain things can't be changed overnight. Some things that the government has neglected are to messed up to fix, it would take a decade or more. He has not made any change to this country, nor will he ever. He is useless and just a celebrity president. This country was so desperate for change, is why he won the election.I stand by my word that he has not keep his. What lame reason did he win this prize for anyway?

[sez]

Actually pone he is following on his promises just that some people are being a hindrance because they don't want him to succeed.
As regards the peace prize I guess the nobel committee knew what it was doing as its not the first time they've awarded it for the purpose of momentum.
If it was the peace prize in economics or maybe the sciences then I'd be equally disgusted but as for the reasons given,I agree with the committee's decision over the bigger picture.
A podcast on this:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/whys/whys_20091009-1904a.mp3

[bigboab]

No! Who is this Obama? Never heard of him till two years ago. There are thousands of people working for peace who never get any recognition.

[ruthie]

As pleased as I was that he won the election, I was shocked about the Nobel. I have been disappointed by what I feel has been Obama's lack of follow through, and his failure to walk his talk.

On another note, how've you all been? Long time no see.

[beansis]

fuck no
even black ppls dont like him anymore

[Skiz]

Actually pone he is following on his promises just that some people are being a hindrance because they don't want him to succeed.


Do you think political opposition is a new thing? :huh:

[sez]

Actually pone he is following on his promises just that some people are being a hindrance because they don't want him to succeed.


Do you think political opposition is a new thing? :huh:

there is a difference between opposing and being a hindrance.

[j2k4]

So did he deserve it? How deserving is it when even Americans find it controversial? Did he simply win it for "not being Bush"?

In order, then:

1. Who cares.

Al Gore has one.

Jimmy Carter has one.

I've seen them on Ebay, I think.

Btw-

Amongst the lot of them, Carter has easily the most stature, truth.

That's saying something.


2. Until all Americans can actually think, it doesn't matter a hill of empty coconuts 'what Americans think'.

No one really gives a shit except those who purport to know or comment, and there are fewer of us every day, so.


3. Well, he won the election for not being Bush, and you don't have to fool any people to win the Nobel, so why not.

I think he should also get a Nobel for Olympics Solicitation, since success is not a requirement.

Anything to rehabilitate a prematurely sagging presidency.


Btw, again-

Didn't you really mean to ask, 'How deserving is it when even liberal Americans find it controversial?'

[rationmyrum]

stalin once was nominated...

[j2k4]

stalin once was nominated...


See?

Just another Lefty...

[nyknicks]

For a president that has continued the Iraq War and escalated the one in Afghanistan, no he doesnt deserve it. Stop those wars, get rid of the patriot act, restore habeas corpus and get rid of any overseas torture detentions (he only got rid of Gbay), then maybe he might deserve it.

[Albo Da Kid]

I think the crowds reaction answers your question. Everybody was booing the decision and I don't think that has ever happened int he history of Nobel prizes before

[Callmehank]

He didn't deserve it. Peace price, Smeesh prize.
I think you have to do something ridic good to get it, not something as minuscule as what he did.

[bigboab]

Tell us Hank. What was this miniscule thing wot he done?

[Snee]

For a president that has continued the Iraq War and escalated the one in Afghanistan, no he doesnt deserve it. Stop those wars, get rid of the patriot act, restore habeas corpus and get rid of any overseas torture detentions (he only got rid of Gbay), then maybe he might deserve it.

So: undo everything Bush did, and get a free peace prize?

[j2k4]

he only got rid of Gbay...

When was this accomplished, please?

[ahctlucabbuS]

stalin once was nominated...

Anyone can be nominated, there's no hinderance. This is perfectly fine unless you're in favour of totalitarian ideas...

On a similar note, George W. Bush was nominated each year of his presidency IIRC.


I think the crowds reaction answers your question. Everybody was booing the decision and I don't think that has ever happened int he history of Nobel prizes before

They were in fact gasping as in beeing surprised. There's a difference.

[nnnnnn]

No! He is not deserving of any sort of prize. The economy is plunging and we are continuing to fight in the middle east. A peace prize for sending more troops to the middle east and also flying around in his private jet using taxpayers money. Maybe he should start worrying about more important things, rather than the summer Olympics in Chicago. His priories are not the same as when he was making all those promises to the country. Same as any other politician. I really never believe anything they say. Most are all hacks. Telling people what they want to hear, but never following through with what they say. I know certain things can't be changed overnight. Some things that the government has neglected are to messed up to fix, it would take a decade or more. He has not made any change to this country, nor will he ever. He is useless and just a celebrity president. This country was so desperate for change, is why he won the election.I stand by my word that he has not keep his. What lame reason did he win this prize for anyway?

Huh...isn't that how you win elections? people want to hear sweet things and be spoonfed with bullshit and lies. If you tell them the truth, you'll never be president. LOL

[j2k4]

I think the crowds reaction answers your question. Everybody was booing the decision and I don't think that has ever happened int he history of Nobel prizes before

They were in fact gasping as in beeing surprised. There's a difference.

This is your surmise?

Why should we trust you are correct?

Proofs are required, you see.

[ahctlucabbuS]

They were in fact gasping as in beeing surprised. There's a difference.

This is your surmise?

Why should we trust you are correct?

Proofs are required, you see.

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52b5IHxqHrk

[j2k4]

This is your surmise?

Why should we trust you are correct?

Proofs are required, you see.

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52b5IHxqHrk


I heard a few mouse farts, I think.

Oh, yeah, and the guy talking.

No proof there, sorry.

[ahctlucabbuS]

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52b5IHxqHrk


I heard a few mouse farts, I think.

Oh, yeah, and the guy talking.

No proof there, sorry.

Prove otherwise, now stop beeing ridiculous.

[kooltilldend]

did he deserve it?

that's like saying...are you the fookin genie from aladdin?

you already know the answer is a bloody NO but you are still asking eh?

[clocker]

you already know the answer is a bloody NO but you are still asking eh?
It's good to know there's only one correct answer to this question and that j2 has it.

Wait, no it's not.

[kooltilldend]

you already know the answer is a bloody NO but you are still asking eh?
It's good to know there's only one correct answer to this question and that j2 has it.

Wait, no it's not.
so u r saying he actually deserved it?

[Rart]

Um...no. He's saying that it's good to open this up to interpretation rather than saying "no, he didn't deserve it, topic done." Discussion doesn't do anyone harm...

[clocker]

It's good to know there's only one correct answer to this question and that j2 has it.

Wait, no it's not.
so u r saying he actually deserved it?
I don't know...what are the qualifications for nomination?

I don't pretend to know the logic or reasoning behind the award but obviously you do and have found it wanting.
It's a tempest in a teapot, just another excuse for all the Foxdroids to display their twisted knickers.

Of course it goes without saying that I also share the shame and humiliation of having our country's leader awarded an internationally prestigious award.

[sez]

so u r saying he actually deserved it?
I don't know...what are the qualifications for nomination?

I don't pretend to know the logic or reasoning behind the award but obviously you do and have found it wanting.
It's a tempest in a teapot, just another excuse for all the Foxdroids to display their twisted knickers.

Of course it goes without saying that I also share the shame and humiliation of having our country's leader awarded an internationally prestigious award.

Agreed.I personally wouldn't pretend to be wiser than the gents sitting on the nobel committee.Perhaps to draw a symmetry to the clamour,its very common for the top management of a corp. to make decisions that in their completeness are for the good of the company only that the wage-earners(whom suprise suprise don't have a sit at board meetings to be privy of the company sikrits)can't see but instead of exerting logic to understand,they resort to civil disobedience(stealing stationery,graffiti,bringing pigs to the office etcetc)

[kooltilldend]

well u guys didn't get the gist of my post

i wasn't saying there's no point in this discussion...i was just suggesting how i feel about the issue (i.e. he doesn't deserve it)

the analogy was just me having a dig at this so-called "Nobel Peace Prize"

[j2k4]

Oh, this is good for what is generally called a "teaching point":

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/_Warmongers_or_Peacemakers%3A_Who_Will_Be_Responsible_for_Scorching_the_Earth%3F/2591/;jsessionid=abcezgoxNsoq3-4aaH4rs

[j2k4]

well u guys didn't get the gist of my post

i wasn't saying there's no point in this discussion...i was just suggesting how i feel about the issue (i.e. he doesn't deserve it)

the analogy was just me having a dig at this so-called "Nobel Peace Prize"

Stand by your "dig", sir.

Watch behind you for liberals.

[ahctlucabbuS]

By all means, let's fuck up the discussion with trolling. "When all else fail"?

[kooltilldend]

well u guys didn't get the gist of my post

i wasn't saying there's no point in this discussion...i was just suggesting how i feel about the issue (i.e. he doesn't deserve it)

the analogy was just me having a dig at this so-called "Nobel Peace Prize"

Stand by your "dig", sir.

Watch behind you for liberals.
lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against me :P

[j2k4]

Stand by your "dig", sir.

Watch behind you for liberals.
lol i'm a neutral so i really don't care who comes up against me :P

Well, then.

[lynx]

Oh, this is good for what is generally called a "teaching point":

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/_Warmongers_or_Peacemakers%3A_Who_Will_Be_Responsible_for_Scorching_the_Earth%3F/2591/;jsessionid=abcezgoxNsoq3-4aaH4rs
Totally flawed argument.

If you boil it down, he is arguing that the current political alignment in Japan means that WW2 was a positive outcome for the US and therefore war was a better solution than negotiation.

The problem with that argument is that it was Japan that went to war while the US was trying for negotiation. Japan lost!

Not that it has anything to do with whether Obama deserves the Nobel prize.

[ahctlucabbuS]

No use in watching biased reporters, your brain will simply melt from the, well, biased point of view...

As soon as the guy start using the term 'liberal', you know you're in for a take on a simplified world view. The reverse holds true as well of course....

This is what you get when the media is run by money; extreme polarization designed to appeal to a specific market... no good.

[j2k4]

You're both incorrect.

Whether or not war is wrong, appeasement/negotiation/diplomacy is at worst a total waste of time, and at best a financial drain.

The fellow used the term "liberal" only in the interest of accuracy; you people who reject labels (when they are applied to you) really should settle in behind your beliefs rather than selectively presenting as some sort of ideological will-o-the-wisp.

Fact is, the fellow wasn't advocating war, he was merely telling the truth about the other.

[clocker]

Whether or not war is wrong, appeasement/negotiation/diplomacy is at worst a total waste of time, and at best a financial drain.


So, if diplomacy is always a bad idea, then war is the only option...for everything.
"Might is right" in all cases, eh?

[j2k4]

Whether or not war is wrong, appeasement/negotiation/diplomacy is at worst a total waste of time, and at best a financial drain.


So, if diplomacy is always a bad idea, then war is the only option...for everything.
"Might is right" in all cases, eh?

Diplomacy has it's place and use.

So has war - let's not naively pretend otherwise.

Your difficulty is discerning when diplomacy becomes a game of 'chicken', and war is looming off-stage-left, looking at the assholes for it's cue.

Diplomacy should always be practiced to the very last moment, of course, but please realize there are a few genuine barbarians left, and many of them are rather unfortunately positioned to cause trouble, as can plainly be seen from the right.

Think of it this way:

Given the relatively new trend of laxity in dealing with those pursuing the ability to cause catastrophic destruction, whether flying flags or under terrorist auspices, the option of 'turning the other cheek' has been removed from the menu.

Human nature creates the imperative, you see?

[lynx]

Total and utter crap.

At the end of the day, short of total annihilation of one side, wars only come to an end by some sort of negotiation. That's even the case when it is described as "unconditional surrender".

Since negotiation is inevitable it is better, where possible, to have that negotiation before conflict occurs.

"Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War" - Winston Churchill.
Let's see you call HIM a left wing liberal.

[buggyfresh]

They gave it to Gorbachev for similar reasons - I wouldn't say he deserved it, but the prize IS a political award (after all base don opinion of a select few) just like the Oscars.. did Halle Berry deserve it for that sex scene with Billy Bob in Monster's Balle - hell no! She should've gotten it the year b4 for Dorothy Dandridge but they gave someone else who was the popular vote instead that year and "made it up" to her with that giveaway.

As said before the positive is they could give it to Joe Plumber and he probably wouldn't have the kind of impact that Obama and his administration could have.

As to him being involve din wars in the Middle East and a plunging economy I think you'll find with a weeb it of research taht is George W's mess he's trying to clean up! lmao!

[clocker]

Your difficulty is discerning when diplomacy becomes a game of 'chicken', and war is looming off-stage-left, looking at the assholes for it's cue.

Diplomacy should always be practiced to the very last moment, of course, but please realize there are a few genuine barbarians left, and many of them are rather unfortunately positioned to cause trouble, as can plainly be seen from the right.


Channeling Cheney again I see.
You "right-seers" really nailed the call invading Iraq the second time didn't you?

Your excellent vision could see an Al-qaeda connection and WMDs where none existed.
Your impeccable political senses could discern widespread local support and desire for Western democracy that is still not apparent to anyone else.

Your belief that you and yours are the only ones capable of seeing and dealing with the threats that face the world is sadly not supported by fact.
Of course, you guys are adept at rewriting history to suit your ends- see: Jackie Robinson was a Republican- and clearly masters of ignoring facts, so who here is surprised?

[j2k4]

Total and utter crap.

At the end of the day, short of total annihilation of one side, wars only come to an end by some sort of negotiation. That's even the case when it is described as "unconditional surrender".

Since negotiation is inevitable it is better, where possible, to have that negotiation before conflict occurs.

"Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War" - Winston Churchill.
Let's see you call HIM a left wing liberal.

Winnie was correct, and so am I.

Sometimes the other side forces the issue, whatever that might be, and I'm quite sure he knew what to do if attacked.

As to your attempt to broaden the meaning of the word "negotiation", compare the "negotiation" constituted in the Treaty of Versailles with those ending WWII, then consider the result of each.

To refuse to see the difference begs intellectual blindness.

[j2k4]

Your belief that you and yours are the only ones capable of seeing and dealing with the threats that face the world is sadly not supported by fact

Recount for me please the sterling history of diplomacy and negotiation in the Mideast.

Start with Israel and Palestine - that should be easy for a practiced leftie.

Perhaps you could also blow some air up Neville Chamberlain's legacy for our edification.

[clocker]

If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.

Way too much work, much simpler to just throw some boots on the ground and 'splode some shit.

[Speedo]

If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.

Way too much work, much simpler to just throw some boots on the ground and 'splode some shit.


Diplomacy is prosponing the inevitable enough for time to shuffle the cards.

[clocker]

If I knew what "prosponing" was I might agree with you.

[j2k4]

If diplomacy and negotiation were easy then Republicans could do it.

And perhaps democrats could, too, rather than just talk about it.

[clocker]

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

[Speedo]

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.

[j2k4]

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.

Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.

Especially Nixon - it's just not done.

[clocker]

Democrats haven't started any wars- oops, sorry...incursions- lately.
Much to Cheney's chagrin.

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.




Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.

Especially Nixon - it's just not done.
Oh Kev, of course you're allowed to use "historical perspective" but it'd be nice if you used the history of this planet and not the fantasy world so beloved of the right these days.
Elected in 1968, Nixon didn't end the Vietnam war until 1973.

So let's see...
Obama has been in office less than a year and hasn't gotten us out of Iraq/Afghanistan yet.
It took five years for Nixon to get out of Vietnam (although to be fair, he was busy breaking domestic laws for the latter half of that period).

And Nixon is more of a peacemaker than Obama?

Even us hippy-dippy liberals don't take as much LSD as you guys appear to.

[j2k4]

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.




Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.

Especially Nixon - it's just not done.
Oh Kev, of course you're allowed to use "historical perspective" but it'd be nice if you used the history of this planet and not the fantasy world so beloved of the right these days.
Elected in 1968, Nixon didn't end the Vietnam war until 1973.

So let's see...
Obama has been in office less than a year and hasn't gotten us out of Iraq/Afghanistan yet.
It took five years for Nixon to get out of Vietnam (although to be fair, he was busy breaking domestic laws for the latter half of that period).

And Nixon is more of a peacemaker than Obama?

Even us hippy-dippy liberals don't take as much LSD as you guys appear to.

I don't believe I was the one who made the comparison, sir.

[clocker]

You're right.
You just encouraged it.

[j2k4]

You're right.
You just encouraged it.

The usage and study of history?

I certainly hope so.

Btw-

How would one go about determining whose version of "history" (yours or mine) was correct?

As an aside, out of a pure and abiding interest, I would appreciate hearing your capsule characterization of Nixon and his presidency...as one who was there, so to speak.

[clocker]

Is there question about when Nixon took office and when the Vietnam accords were signed?
Do my dates not jibe with yours?

[Speedo]

Doesn't matter.

It's Obamas wars now. Even Nixon did more to end wars than him.

Oh, but we're not allowed to use historical perspective to denigrate liberals, don't you know.

Especially Nixon - it's just not done.

I'm not saying that Nixon did no wrong. But I'm saying Obama has done no good, yet. He was elected to end the wars and didn't. And frankly, I lost all respect for the man the day he decided not to support impeachment against the previous administration.

Liberals who do nothing can be far more dangerous than republicans with a corporate agenda.

Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[clocker]

... I lost all respect for the man the day he decided not to support impeachment against the previous administration.


How does one impeach a President no longer in office?

[100%]

Drown him in peaches.
Non sexual vocabulary.

[j2k4]

Is there question about when Nixon took office and when the Vietnam accords were signed?
Do my dates not jibe with yours?

Huh?

Think you're talking to the wrong guy...

[100%]

I live next door to nobel farce, what texts would you like on the posters?
list pls
i decide.

[clocker]

How would one go about determining whose version of "history" (yours or mine) was correct?




Is there question about when Nixon took office and when the Vietnam accords were signed?
Do my dates not jibe with yours?




Huh?

Think you're talking to the wrong guy...
Who's on second?

[lynx]

What?

[Speedo]

... I lost all respect for the man the day he decided not to support impeachment against the previous administration.


How does one impeach a President no longer in office?

Ooook, mr.technicality.

Not putting forward criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for their war crimes is against any morality, and should be against the law.

[j2k4]

How does one impeach a President no longer in office?

Ooook, mr.technicality.

Not putting forward criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for their war crimes is against any morality...

Are you quite sure about that.

[Speedo]

Ooook, mr.technicality.

Not putting forward criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for their war crimes is against any morality...

Are you quite sure about that.

I do believe it's well documented that the Bush administration invaded Iraq with no former validated intelligence. They started the war with intelligence reports having only one convincing source, and have later come to regret the decisions they made, but showing no policy change on their new found knowledge.

Or you have the torture they allowed or the unconstitutional wiretapping that still taking place in your country. The bucs administration can be charged for treason on a number of cases.

Glad to be in europe :)

[j2k4]

The bucs administration can be charged for treason on a number of cases.

Must've given that a miss.


Sorry.

[sriups]

nope he do not deserve a NOBEL.