Obama's Nobel Peace Prize... What's your take?

Quote:

President Obama's stunning Nobel Peace Prize win may help solidify his international reputation and cement the prize committee's clear desire to repudiate former President George W. Bush.

Back home, however, where the president is grappling with near-record unemployment, an epic health care struggle and wars on two fronts, the honor was, at best, a mixed blessing. Even those who generally support Obama say it carries more than a dollop of political peril.

"It seems so inappropriate, so premature, that it gives sustenance to critics who say he's a celebrity honored for his existence and aspirations, not for his accomplishments," says Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution.

"With friends like the prize committee," Mann says, "who needs enemies?"
-New York Times

Personally I think he does not deserve it, at least not yet. I think one should be given the award based on actions, not intentions.

Most amazing jew boots

I fully agree with you, bluesy violin. In my opinion there's nothing more to say.

How ya doing, buddy?

When I first heard about this I thought "What he do?"
To me, he's been treated more like a tv celebrity than a president appearing in commercials and such.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

To be frank, the Peace Prize hasn't had a great record.

Why, for example, did the IPCC, a very legitimate group of hard-wroking scientists, have to share it with Al Gore, a not-so-credible politican-cum-film producer.

When compared to Woodrow Wilson, who did very little real work for world peace, Obama seems like a reasonable choice. Wilson's Fourteen Points showed an absolute ignorance of European politics and more or less condemned that continent to instability. His arrogance ensured that the US would not sign the Versailles treaty, and thus doom the League of Nations. His negotiations in Paris were absurd, and ensured a strong but bitter Germany would survivie.

Furthermore, before anyone bashes Obama for considering the despatch of 40 000 troops to Afghanistan, keep in mind that Wilson sent a 100 000+ man "punitive" expidition to Mexico and did very little to reverse the Monroe Doctrine.

But he did speak well, and gained the confidence of many.

Obama, on the other hand, is the first person in history to gain a unianimous vote for nuclear disarmament in the UN General Assembly, has showed a willingess to take the environment seriously, has the confidence of both China and Russia, began dismalting the provocative missile shield in Europe, sent an olive branch to the Muslim world and was both reasonable and productive in the G20 talks to restructure the global economy.

Not bad for less than a year. He is, in fact, one of the more worthy recipients of the prize.


It's good to be back.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

I DON"T GIVE A FUCK NOW GIVE ME MY EPIC PALADIN GEAR

Er... I picked this one. Only because--well--it's true. Also, because there was a lack of "explain why he deserves it" option.

Although, loyalist did a fairly good job of explaining it. I still don't really agree he should have gotten it, but if that's how it goes... oh well. Who am I to argue.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

To be frank, the Peace Prize hasn't had a great record.

Why, for example, did the IPCC, a very legitimate group of hard-wroking scientists, have to share it with Al Gore, a not-so-credible politican-cum-film producer.

When compared to Woodrow Wilson, who did very little real work for world peace, Obama seems like a reasonable choice. Wilson's Fourteen Points showed an absolute ignorance of European politics and more or less condemned that continent to instability. His arrogance ensured that the US would not sign the Versailles treaty, and thus doom the League of Nations. His negotiations in Paris were absurd, and ensured a strong but bitter Germany would survivie.

Furthermore, before anyone bashes Obama for considering the despatch of 40 000 troops to Afghanistan, keep in mind that Wilson sent a 100 000+ man "punitive" expidition to Mexico and did very little to reverse the Monroe Doctrine.

But he did speak well, and gained the confidence of many.

Obama, on the other hand, is the first person in history to gain a unianimous vote for nuclear disarmament in the UN General Assembly, has showed a willingess to take the environment seriously, has the confidence of both China and Russia, began dismalting the provocative missile shield in Europe, sent an olive branch to the Muslim world and was both reasonable and productive in the G20 talks to restructure the global economy.

Not bad for less than a year. He is, in fact, one of the more worthy recipients of the prize.

I know the Nobel Peace Prize award had raised eyebrows couple of times but I can't remember the names off hand. Google it up if you're interested.

Well, lets put it this way. If an artist signs a contract to record a disc, and perhaps in our case to illustrate, many contracts. It looks promising and full of potential. But he isn't given the Grammy until he finally finishes it.

Btw I noticed you are level 1.00 and joined in Oct 2009. Did you just create an account just to vote on this poll?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

No, I created this account becuase after a long absence, I have returned.

FELIPE NO

The deadline for nominations on February 2, 2009 was twelve days after Obama took office.

So, let's look at what he did!

1. January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
2. January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
3. January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use of torture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
4. January 22: Obama met with numerous retired generals.
5. January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
6. January 23: Obama calls Prime Minister Harper of Canada, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations.
7. January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position of special envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern.
8. January 27: More phone calls. This time Obama speaks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan.

So, uh... aside from ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- and later flip-flopping from his election pledge about prosecuting some detainees last May -- do you guys honestly see anything that contribute to world peace?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

You could arguably say that purely by keeping McCain out of the White House, Obama successfully prevented a war with Iran.

I would argue that telling the military to stop torturin' people is in fact conducive to world peace, but your mileage may vary.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Pangalin

You could arguably say that purely by keeping McCain out of the White House, Obama successfully prevented a war with Iran.

But by saying that, you would have to imply that in fact the U.S. citizens that voted for him should recieve the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing him into office, not Obama himself.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Look. Can we all just agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is as much a popularity contest as the MTV music awards and move on with our lives?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Musharraf

But by saying that, you would have to imply that in fact the U.S. citizens that voted for him should recieve the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing him into office, not Obama himself.

What is the president but an individual we select to represent the rest of us?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Hey now, the Nobel Peace Prize isn't the same as that hokey Time Person of the Year award

, when they gave the 2006 award to "You" and put a reflective tin foil mirror on the front page of that issue.

Right?

>.>

<.<

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Look. Can we all just agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is as much a popularity contest as the MTV music awards and move on with our lives?

Can we move on with our lives? Should we? Mhhmm?

I would say there has to be a certain level of participation by the people on issues like this, and at least a stand. Not just brushing off lightly and living our merry lives having kinky sex.

Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance is dangerous too.
I would hardly think it is alright to simply "agree that it is a popularity contest" and "move on with our lives", for such thinking if applied to everyone, will really dilute the Nobel Peace Prize to a permanent popularity contest. It is by making voices heard, we keep the other side in check.

The Nobel Prizes are prestigious. Lets keep them that way.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Didn't Yasir Arafat win a Nobel Peace Prize some time back?

I realize it was toward the end of his political career but still, apparently personal history (or a lack of it) isn't quite the barrier you'd think.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Pangalin

You could arguably say that purely by keeping McCain out of the White House, Obama successfully prevented a war with Iran.

And then he surrendered Poland to the Russians. Which makes him more like Hitler than any other previous American President. :rimshot:

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

Didn't Yasir Arafat win a Nobel Peace Prize some time back?

Which should prove how much of a joke the prize is now.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by bluesy violin

Can we move on with our lives? Should we? Mhhmm?

I would say there has to be a certain level of participation by the people on issues like this, and at least a stand. Not just brushing off lightly and living our merry lives having kinky sex.

Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance is dangerous too.
I would hardly think it is alright to simply "agree that it is a popularity contest" and "move on with our lives", for such thinking if applied to everyone, will really dilute the Nobel Peace Prize to a permanent popularity contest. It is by making voices heard, we keep the other side in check.

The Nobel Prizes are prestigious. Lets keep them that way.

The Nobel Prize ISN'T prestigious, that's the problem. You aren't fighting for world hunger here, you're fighting for a prize that has been given to some terrible men over the years. If you think understanding a thing well enough to know it isn't worth saving is ignorance, then you're educated-retarded and need to spend less time reading about the riots in Seattle.

Keeping the "other side" in check? By other side I assume you mean the people who vote for the nobel prize. You know, those people who have been a joke for over 30 years. Those people on the other side?

Learn to pick battles worth fighting, you just make yourself look like a jackass if you treat everything like an downtrodden orphan needing to be saved. Grow up.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Look. Can we all just agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is as much a popularity contest as the MTV music awards and move on with our lives?

YouTube Video

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Got 5min left before my lecture resumes.. let me keep this quick.

Nobel Prize isn't prestigious? Wow. Do you come from an alternate universe?
I don't give a fuck about Seattle riots. The Nobel Prizes and the riots are two different events. Despite your claim of a similar point, I hardly think they are the same. Bad analogy.
The fact is this. It has been given to some terrible man over the years. But should we let it continue? I hardly think Alfred would think so.
If by your sense we take things so lightly, then what's the point of creating such prizes, and future prizes? Should mankind just forsake all prizes because "they'll somehow turn into jokes"?
They must have some value and therefore I believe there is a must to defend it.

Learn to pick battles worth fighting? But that is in your opinion. I believe it is worth speaking out for. Also, why is it impossible to fight world hunger and still talk about the Nobel Prize at the same time?
Its like why can't you watch TV while you eat your McChicken.
Using the "grow up" rhetoric hardly ceases to amuse me.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by bluesy violin

Got 5min left before my lecture resumes.. let me keep this quick.

Nobel Prize isn't prestigious? Wow. Do you come from an alternate universe?
I don't give a fuck about Seattle riots. The Nobel Prizes and the riots are two different events. Despite your claim of a similar point, I hardly think they are the same. Bad analogy.
The fact is this. It has been given to some terrible man over the years. But should we let it continue? I hardly think Alfred would think so.
If by your sense we take things so lightly, then what's the point of creating such prizes, and future prizes? Should mankind just forsake all prizes because "they'll somehow turn into jokes"?
They must have some value and therefore I believe there is a must to defend it.

Learn to pick battles worth fighting? But that is in your opinion. I believe it is worth speaking out for. Also, why is it impossible to fight world hunger and still talk about the Nobel Prize at the same time?
Its like why can't you watch TV while you eat your McChicken.
Using the "grow up" rhetoric hardly ceases to amuse me.

O you are just precious. And no. I come from the universe where the Peace prize is often given to men who are somewhat less than peaceful. I imagine you're from the same one, though your dullenplain-esque grasp of sarcasm would indicate otherwise. I'm sorry if you swallow the rhetoric instead of the evidence when it comes to the peace prize, but that's hardly my problem.

And I wasn't making an analogy of the riots and the peace prize, I was making an analogy of your "all causes are deserving of equal treatment" bullshit. You'd know that if you'd learned how to read and interpret the language. A skill I guess they must not teach to music majors.

Of course Alfred Nobel wouldn't want to see his prize turned into a bloody farce, but it still has. The Nobel prize is as prestigious for the peace process as the Oscars are for films. It might be the biggest thing out there, but 9 times out of 10 they get it wrong. Your slippery slope argument is an utter joke, by the way. "We can't admit this thing is broken, because then everything might one day be seen as broken!"

Good job on that. Very intelligent approach to the situation. Learn to use the language before you try and be flowery and cutting. It doesn't hold up when all you're doing is drooling all over the forums. I imagine English is your second language, and that's fine, but know that if you don't understand concepts like irony or sarcasm, do not just treat what people say as literal. It makes you look like a donkey.

How ya doing, buddy?

It comes down to this modern constant: 95% of the people who are well-known enough to be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize come from backgrounds and experiences that are decidedly not conducive to promoting unified world peace, else their careers and lifebloods would be obsoleted. What need is there for world leaders when the world can govern itself? For every five good-natured men and women out in the jungles treating injured elephants or teaching impoverished Cambodian children how to read, there's some ivy league jackass phoning the media, saying "Yeah, see them? I did that." And that person will get the glory every time.

So just accept that the nobility has been taken out of the Nobel Prize. They don't select recipients based upon the person, but rather the proximity of the person to the particular cause that the Nobel Committee wishes to bring to public attention that year, regardless of how much benefit or harm the winner may have had in relation. Wanna promote peace in the Middle East? Give it to Arafat, even though he was the biggest antagonist there for decades. Wanna promote the green agenda? Give it to Gore, even though he's become a mouthpiece who uses sensationalism in place of facts.

It's a lot simpler to give Nobel prizes to tangible efforts such as physics, chemistry and medicine - fields whose research yield measurable results. But for peace, all they can do is offer to someone with outspoken good intentions, and we all know where that paved road leads.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Zergrinch

The deadline for nominations on February 2, 2009 was twelve days after Obama took office.

So, let's look at what he did!

1. January 21: Obama met with the ambassador to Iraq, commander in Iraq, and regional commander to receive a complete briefing on the war.
2. January 22: Obama ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
3. January 22: Obama signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting the use of torture and ordering all U.S. forces to obey the Army Field Manual. He also ordered a review of the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, a detainee held on a Naval brig in South Carolina.
4. January 22: Obama met with numerous retired generals.
5. January 23: Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy, which had prevented nongovernmental organizations from receiving government funding if they supplied family planning assistance or abortions abroad.
6. January 23: Obama calls Prime Minister Harper of Canada, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, and Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations.
7. January 26: Obama announced his appointing of Todd Stern to the new position of special envoy for climate change -- recognizing the environment as a pressing foreign-policy concern.
8. January 27: More phone calls. This time Obama speaks with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, South African President Kgalema Motlanthe, and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan.

So, uh... aside from ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp -- and later flip-flopping from his election pledge about prosecuting some detainees last May -- do you guys honestly see anything that contribute to world peace?

I don't understand why people seem to assume that he received it for actions while he was president. That logic doesn't seem to make sense to me. The prizes are generally given for things accomplished in the previous year, anyways.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Very well then, I'm not well read on his excellency. Would you care to share what Nobel-worthy activities has President Obama accomplished - prior to becoming president?

FELIPE NO

He was a black guy with a legitimate shot at becoming President.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I never said he did anything worthy of receiving it, just that it is a ludicrous idea that they awarded him it based on 2 weeks in office. Do some research into the award before you come in and make misinformed statements. Regardless of whether or not you think he deserves it, your reasoning is flawed.

How ya doing, buddy?