Org Mobile Site
Congratulations to President Obama. While fully 10% of all individual award winners have been citizens of the United States, making us a fairly common recipient country for this award, a seated President has only been given the award three times (Wilson as the key broker at Versailles in 1919 and Teddy Roosevelt for his work in concluding the Russo-Japanes war in 1904/05).
A list of winners.
In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.
Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:
1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)
2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).
3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].
All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.
In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.
A list of winners.
In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.
Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:
1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)
2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).
3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].
All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.
In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Why, because that's how Alfred Nobel wanted it to be done?
Giving it to someone because of what they might achieve is just plain stupid. Why not give me the award, or any other random person?
Awards are meant for people who have accomplished something. Giving them to people because of what they might do is meaningless.
CR
No.Why, because that's how Alfred Nobel wanted it to be done?
Giving it to someone because of what they might achieve is just plain stupid. Why not give me the award, or any other random person?
Awards are meant for people who have accomplished something. Giving them to people because of what they might do is meaningless.
CR
Reducing the peace prize to a mere award for some accomplishment is the exact opposite of what Alfred Nobel wanted it to be.
He wanted it to promote peace, not as a reward for achieving peace. The prize is leverage. Always has been, always will. Take the prizes given to Israel and Palestine after the Oslo deal, for example. It wasn't a reward for "achieving peace", it was a statement that read "good start, now stay focused and finish the job!"
Just like the prize to Obama is. He's started out well, and the nobel committee would love to see him finish the job. The peace prize is a reminder and an encouragement to that.
And that's exactly what Nobel wanted it to do.
I see National Review is having its usual measured, thoughtful response:
OMG it's the end of 'Merica!
The situation is weird enough without the usual suspects piling on in their predictable way.
The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America's interests in the world. That is why Obama could win it based on only ten days in office — merely by capturing the White House and the levers of power, he stands to do more for the Left's "knock America off its pedestal" program than any figure in history.
OMG it's the end of 'Merica!
The situation is weird enough without the usual suspects piling on in their predictable way.
A zing from the Taliban;
Originally Posted by :
At the other end of the spectrum, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency the award was ridiculous.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he said.
CRAt the other end of the spectrum, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency the award was ridiculous.
"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," he said.
If what they did is basically elect him “Most Likely to Succeed” It will very likely have the reverse effect.
It only gives his enemies, foreign and domestic, something to harangue and rally around. There are many who will blame him for excepting an award without doing anything, rather than the shear stupidity of the committee for giving it to him.
I am sticking by my assertion that these jokers are on drugs...
It only gives his enemies, foreign and domestic, something to harangue and rally around. There are many who will blame him for excepting an award without doing anything, rather than the shear stupidity of the committee for giving it to him.
I am sticking by my assertion that these jokers are on drugs...
This might be relevant to the discussion...
Originally Posted by :
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
Good analysis on the matter, Seamus Fermanagh.
Originally Posted by Fixiwee:
Good analysis on the matter, Seamus Fermanagh.
Thank you. I personally think the committee are a bunch of pacifist idealists who don't get it, but holding that opinion doesn't justify poor analysis.Good analysis on the matter, Seamus Fermanagh.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...iew/index.html
When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to 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 of peace congresses."
Obama was nominated for the NPP in Feruary, when about the most and best work he had "done" was dance with his wife at the post-inauguration parties. Most of the credit may go to the Cairo speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_211215.html
Which didn't even happen until June and has one whole paragragh about Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to 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 of peace congresses."
Obama was nominated for the NPP in Feruary, when about the most and best work he had "done" was dance with his wife at the post-inauguration parties. Most of the credit may go to the Cairo speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_211215.html
Which didn't even happen until June and has one whole paragragh about Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
That doesn't change much. Would he not have done things like for instance the cairo speech he wouldn't have got the prize. Let's not forget that he was only nominated among 200 others back in february.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
By 2012 he will probably have to run as a Republican.Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
pity its not April fools.
he does not deserve that award. at least not yet.
um, NO.
so by that reasoning we should give the prize to everyone, because then they would be inspired to do some good towards mankind.
what if some dumb words by him causes a war, or makes something go badly wrong. guess those folks over at the Nobel peace prize association would look pretty dumb.
but once again, you cant expect them to not bow at the alter to obama, right?
*Sigh* pity its not April fools.
he does not deserve that award. at least not yet.
um, NO.
so by that reasoning we should give the prize to everyone, because then they would be inspired to do some good towards mankind.
what if some dumb words by him causes a war, or makes something go badly wrong. guess those folks over at the Nobel peace prize association would look pretty dumb.
but once again, you cant expect them to not bow at the alter to obama, right?
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
YES Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012
Originally Posted by Agent Miles:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...iew/index.html
When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to 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 of peace congresses."
Obama was nominated for the NPP in Feruary, when about the most and best work he had "done" was dance with his wife at the post-inauguration parties. Most of the credit may go to the Cairo speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_211215.html
Which didn't even happen until June and has one whole paragragh about Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
He was nominated in february? What does that have to do with anything?http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...iew/index.html
When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to 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 of peace congresses."
Obama was nominated for the NPP in Feruary, when about the most and best work he had "done" was dance with his wife at the post-inauguration parties. Most of the credit may go to the Cairo speech:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_211215.html
Which didn't even happen until June and has one whole paragragh about Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The decision wasn't made in february, nor was it made on accomplishments made within february. The final decision, IIRC, was made yesterday. And it was based on anything done up until yesterday.
EDIT: Anyway, the prize is decided by norwegian social democrats, with their norwegian social democratic agenda. That means you right-wingers will never get it
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Congratulations to President Obama. While fully 10% of all individual award winners have been citizens of the United States, making us a fairly common recipient country for this award, a seated President has only been given the award three times (Wilson as the key broker at Versailles in 1919 and Teddy Roosevelt for his work in concluding the Russo-Japanes war in 1904/05).
A list of winners.
In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.
Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:
1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)
2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).
3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].
All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.
In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.
Good read, although I'd disagree with the merits one must possess to receive the award.Congratulations to President Obama. While fully 10% of all individual award winners have been citizens of the United States, making us a fairly common recipient country for this award, a seated President has only been given the award three times (Wilson as the key broker at Versailles in 1919 and Teddy Roosevelt for his work in concluding the Russo-Japanes war in 1904/05).
A list of winners.
In large part, I agree with Don Corleone's analysis. As Horetore rightly notes, the award can be and has been awarded based on future expectations. The Nobel Committee undoubtedly views the Obama administration atttitude as being so fundamentally different from that of his immediate predecessor -- as evidenced by the Obama administration's draw-down in Iraq, shift away from missile defense in favor of easing tensions with the Russians, the gradual return of the "War on Terror" towards a "law enforcement" approach, his willingness to utilize the UN as a forum for peace efforts and the implication that unilateral action will be less likely, and the fact that he made no overtures/threats/hints that the US would use force in Honduras -- that they wish to reward and encourage such behavior.
Upcoming decisions facing the Obama administration include:
1. deciding whether to significantly ramp up troop involvement in Afghanistan or begin a drawn-down/withdrawal there as well (I deem it likely that most of the committee are of the view that Afghanistan will not stabilize and that the presence of NATO troops only begets a higher level of violence for no difference in end-result and that the presence of U.S. forces in Pakistan is engendering a civil war with the Pashtun opposing the current regime and the U.S., and that a withdrawal will allow Pakistan to return to normal, thus minimizing the chance of a nuclear exchange.)
2. deciding whether to increase pressure on the Conservative government in Israel to stop its constant resort to violence in coping with the Palestinians and other neighbors (I deem it likely that the committee views Israel's current efforts as too aggressive by half and that Israel's refusal to deal with Hamas on a political level is the biggest stumbling block preventing an agreement).
3. deciding what to do with the detainees at Guantanemo Bay and whether they should be released, put under the aegis of civilian rather than military justice, or placed in the U.S. Federal prison population [this is part of the shift in forcus away from "warring" against terrorism -- which is what the terrorists want for recruiting purposes -- toward "policing" the crimes that individual terrorists commit while strengthening passive barriers to terrorist success and working politically to minimize the causes of such extremism].
All three such decisions involve Obama facing significant domestic opposition should he choose the approach which I view is the preferred choice of those on the committee. In addition to rewarding Obama for what he has already done differently, the Prize also serves to reinforce and to provide evidence of political support for his continuing the efforts in this vein. Given the cachet of the Nobel Prize, it DOES exert some political influence and this is a fairly clear means of forwarding the coimmittee's preferred agenda.
In addition, Obama is very much not George W. Bush. Given the oft-expressed opinions most of Europe West of the Elbe held for "Dubya," that fact alone may have been enough to prompt the committee's actions.
Originally Posted by Ice:
Good read, although I'd disagree with the merits one must possess to receive the award.
Why?Good read, although I'd disagree with the merits one must possess to receive the award.
If the prize isn't going to push an agenda, if it shouldn't try changing the world, then what's the point of having it?
I mean, we already have His Majesty the King's lifetime achievement medal, what would we need a peace prize for?
Why?
Ok, achievement is not necessary to get the price: See Kissinger and Le Duc To for peace in Vietnam just before North finished the job in taking Saigon, or the late Ahtisaari for his “negotiation” in the Kosovo affairs. There is no need for success.
“if not for that imbecile, naive fool of Gorbachev, USSR would have largely remained.” Well, Eltsin and his coup gave the coup de grace.
Probably the only thing Eltsin succeeded, and to sell Russia to the apparatchiks of course…
Ok, achievement is not necessary to get the price: See Kissinger and Le Duc To for peace in Vietnam just before North finished the job in taking Saigon, or the late Ahtisaari for his “negotiation” in the Kosovo affairs. There is no need for success.
“if not for that imbecile, naive fool of Gorbachev, USSR would have largely remained.” Well, Eltsin and his coup gave the coup de grace.
Probably the only thing Eltsin succeeded, and to sell Russia to the apparatchiks of course…
Hasn't it been the Republican presidents of late that have actually accomplished all the nuclear disarming treaties?
CR
CR
May I start off by saying that it is the crazy norwegians who handles the peace prize. It's not part of the "proper" swedish Nobel prize. Back in Nobel's day, Sweden used to own Norway (we still do, but in a way other meaning of the word).
Now, about Obama and the peace prize... Ridiculous...
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is on a whole different scale of good compared to Bush. But still???
What has he actually done?
If he actually accomplished something, it would be WAY better to give him the prize then... For soooo many reasons, most of them stated already.
Now, about Obama and the peace prize... Ridiculous...
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is on a whole different scale of good compared to Bush. But still???
What has he actually done?
If he actually accomplished something, it would be WAY better to give him the prize then... For soooo many reasons, most of them stated already.
They're the ones to talk about violence and killing civilians... 
Also this might be relevant to the discussion:
Also this might be relevant to the discussion:
Originally Posted by Obama according to link:
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
So, was he trying to summarize this thread?I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.
And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Why?
If the prize isn't going to push an agenda, if it shouldn't try changing the world, then what's the point of having it?
I mean, we already have His Majesty the King's lifetime achievement medal, what would we need a peace prize for?
I'd rather have it awarded based on results.Why?
If the prize isn't going to push an agenda, if it shouldn't try changing the world, then what's the point of having it?
I mean, we already have His Majesty the King's lifetime achievement medal, what would we need a peace prize for?
Totally awesome.
All the pros and cons beside, I think everyone agrees that this NPP started an interessting discussion about Obama and the peace/war process. And in that specific sense the prize is already an success. People are talking/discussing peace and that is only a good thing.
Just wait until we start bashing eachother's heads in. 
I agree with Ice though, the reward should be given for achieving a certain result, and as I have shown, even Obama shares that view...
I agree with Ice though, the reward should be given for achieving a certain result, and as I have shown, even Obama shares that view...
Best line so far - coming from the State Department:
Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.
Why the hell is this on the front page of google news? It's a gay reward no one ever cares about. Miss Universe is a bigger deal. Talk about a slow news day 
used to be something before it became strictly political sadly, it has been hijacked it no longer means anything. Way to go leftieloonies, keep a professional distance for a change. Now obama I can even understand because of his exceptional ability to read what's in front of him, but Al Gore?
Originally Posted by Ice:
I'd rather have it awarded based on results.
It already is - and it's called "His Majesty the King's achievement medal".I'd rather have it awarded based on results.
But that wasn't the one Obama got, so it would have to be something else then, now wouldn't it?
Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Why the hell is this on the front page of google news? It's a gay reward no one ever cares about. Miss Universe is a bigger deal. Talk about a slow news day
Hey, besides the times Norway is rated the best country in the world by all credible sources, this is our one time in the spotlight. Stop ruining it!Why the hell is this on the front page of google news? It's a gay reward no one ever cares about. Miss Universe is a bigger deal. Talk about a slow news day
Anyway, read an interview with the head of the committee, Torbjørn Jagland, in the morning paper just now, in which he specified even more why obama got it.
He said that Obama had been on the cards along with a dozen others all the time, but it was 2 recent events that singled him out and eventually earned him the prize - canceling the missile shield and his UN thingy about nuclear disarmament.
Oh, and I just realized I haven't stated my own opinion on here... My opinion is that some guy in Kongo should've gotten the prize. Perhaps someone working with the centers for rape victims in eastern Kongo. But I'm used to never seeing my "favourite" getting the prize, so I little problem with Obama getting it. The only negative thing is, of course, Afghanistan, it pains me to see someone who engages in war get the prize.... But hey, he's doing more positive stuff, so what the hey.
Also, I'll let you silly foreigners in on a little secret: Norwegians have a serious diplomacy-fetish. Whenever someone says the word "dialogue", you get 4,8 million instant boners here. Yes, even the women get one. Don't ask. The committee is all norwegians, all nominated by elected norwegian politicians. Obama has been quite fond of dialogue.... You still wonder why he got it?
And Al Gore? nah
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Hasn't it been the Republican presidents of late that have actually accomplished all the nuclear disarming treaties?
Very good point. Since nuclear disarmament seems to be a key aspiration of the NPP, one might have thought a balanced approach would have recognised this. But then HoreTore and others maintain the aspiration is enough - clearly actual results sully the vision.Hasn't it been the Republican presidents of late that have actually accomplished all the nuclear disarming treaties?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Just wait until we start bashing eachother's heads in.
Just wait until we start bashing eachother's heads in.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
And Al Gore? nah
Within the established parameters of the NPP, Al Gore is certainly an appropriate winner. One may not agree with his agenda politically, but the Committee does and recognised his undoubted contribution to that cause. He shared the prize with the IPCC, remember.And Al Gore? nah
Obama hasn't even achieved that kind of contribution. I don't buy the arguments put forward to justify the award since previous winners have all had some sort of a track record or have got the prize just for doing their job (el Baradei or Kofi Annan, for example) as a representative of the organisation in which they are employed.
And I don't think it merits a trivial dismissal that Obama is still warmongering in Afghanistan and considering an even greater involvement. Set the reality of the dead and dying of that benighted place against some fluffy words (might I bring Guantanamo into the discussion - still operating despite the fine words?) and I note that the president has an awfully long way to go before being considered a man of peace.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO