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

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

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