President O'Bama Nobel Laureate...

[Fixiwee]

Link

Not really sure why to be honest...

• Hasn't achieved anything conrete on Palestine-Israel, whilst not condemning Israel strongly for their invasion.
• Pursuiing nuclear disarmament without... you know... disarming himself...
• Continuing and perhaps escalating Afghanistan
• Withdrawing from Iraq, but not totally

Surely there are far better people than this?

Oh and I realise that I am going to be agreeing with Conservatives on this one... yes I am confused too.

Obama has improved the diplomatic relationship with

• Russia
• The muslim world
• Europe
• Iran

He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
He did not start the two wars that you are talking about. Starting wars is easy y'know.
Nuclear disarmament is a long process. You can't think that the 3 weeks since the UN meeting is enough time y'know.

[CountArach]

Obama has improved the diplomatic relationship with

• Russia
• The muslim world
• Europe
• Iran

He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
He did not start the two wars that you are talking about. Starting wars is easy y'know.
Nuclear disarmament is a long process. You can't think that the 3 weeks since the UN meeting is enough time y'know.

If he achieves... hell... even two of the things on the list I posted then I would support him getting it. He hasn't, so he doesn't deserve it - at this time.

[HoreTore]

If he achieves... hell... even two of the things on the list I posted then I would support him getting it. He hasn't, so he doesn't deserve it - at this time.

A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done; while in fact it's actually given just as much on the basis on what soeone might do in the future.

The peace prize is at its best when it works like a kick in the behind. It's not something you go into retirement with, it's a tool you're given to make your future work easier.

Do they (the NPP selection team) ever reveal who came in 2nd, or runner-up?

No.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I would rather have sources on that HoreTore... And not jsut from some random blogger...

[rajpoot]

A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done; while in fact it's actually given just as much on the basis on what soeone might do in the future.

Was just watching the news, they were showing what people from New York thought about it, asking questions from pedestrians and stuff. A guy said the exact same thing....the very same words nearly.

Well, if that is the case then I think they need to rethink when do they give away a Nobel prize....it's normally given when people actually do something....not for planning to do something.
On the other hand, if it's just for the Cario speech as everyone here is assuming.....then again....well....I don't know, compare it with when they gave the prize to the Lama or Mother Teresa, this seems kind of weak and pointless.

[InsaneApache]

Eureka! All is revealed....

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

[HoreTore]

I would rather have sources on that HoreTore... And not jsut from some random blogger...

Sources? Try Aftenposten, Dagbladet, VG, NRK and TV2 for the last....oh I don't know, 5 years or so?

Was just watching the news, they were showing what people from New York thought about it, asking questions from pedestrians and stuff. A guy said the exact same thing....the very same words nearly.

Well, if that is the case then I think they need to rethink when do they give away a Nobel prize....it's normally given when people actually do something....not for planning to do something.
On the other hand, if it's just for the Cario speech as everyone here is assuming.....then again....well....I don't know, compare it with when they gave the prize to the Lama or Mother Teresa, this seems kind of weak and pointless.

I don't agree.

The nobel prize would lose its points if its only given to those who have already done their job. The entire point of the peace prize is to get people to do something.

Oh, and Jagland said that Obama got the prize for "strengthening international diplomacy and human relations".

....And not so shockingly, Mrs. Siv Jensen is "shocked"...I think this is the 12903895438577493 time that woman is shocked....

EDIT: Jagland is interviewed on NRK right now. He just confirmed everything I've said

EDIT2: Jan Egeland, head of NUPI, also agrees....

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sources? Try Aftenposten, Dagbladet, VG, NRK and TV2 for the last....oh I don't know, 5 years or so?

Alright, I agree then.

[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.

[Ice]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done.

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

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

[Whacker]

No.

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.

No.

(I don't know what Alfred intended it for so I'm not going to research or argue that point.)

Intentions are nothing. Hollow. Empty. Intentions don't help people, feed people, start wars, or bring about change. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Action is everything. Deeds are proof. Helping someone up who fell down, cooking someone a meal, or pulling a trigger are actions that cause change.

It doesn't matter that a person intended to finish that project for work on time. Because he or she didn't, the company lost that business opportunity and is now worse off. It doesn't make a whit of difference if a person intends on picking up their child on time from daycare. If they don't, then you have a poster case of gross negligence and child neglect.

I don't give STFS's right testicle what Obama's intent is for the overall world peace situation. He may really want world peace and rainbows and ponies. Accomplishing that is something else entirely.

My understanding of the Nobel prizes are that they are awarded for tangible action. Louis pointed out a few oddities, but that doesn't change my understanding. If what you say is true, and it's really just something that can also be given to spur someone on, then it's significantly cheapened it and the entire process in my view (and many others it sounds like).

Intent is nothing. Action is everything. Period.

[HoreTore]

My understanding of the Nobel prizes are that they are awarded for tangible action. Louis pointed out a few oddities, but that doesn't change my understanding. If what you say is true, and it's really just something that can also be given to spur someone on, then it's significantly cheapened it and the entire process in my view (and many others it sounds like).

Intent is nothing. Action is everything. Period.

Then go make your own prize, you don't share Nobel's vision. Like it or not, it was his right to do whatever he wanted with his money, he choose to make this prize. Whether or not you(or anyone else) support it, is quite irrelevant.

Nobel wanted a world without war. He created the peace prize as a means to that end. Of course the prize itself should further peace, and not just be a reward for accomplishments.

[Hosakawa Tito]

It's more like a reward for not being Dubya. The Western International community is so relieved that Bush is out of the picture that they're caught up in the Obama hype. Time will tell if it lasts.

[Lemur]

I see National Review is having its usual measured, thoughtful response:

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.

[Fisherking]

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...

[HoreTore]

This might be relevant to the discussion...

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."

[Beskar]

Vote: Noam Chomsky for President 2012

[Fixiwee]

Good analysis on the matter, Seamus Fermanagh.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[The Stranger]

Obama has improved the diplomatic relationship with

• Russia
• The muslim world
• Europe
• Iran

He got the nobel prize for those achievments. This prize is a hint that this path is the only one for global peace. Something the former administration did not realize.
He did not start the two wars that you are talking about. Starting wars is easy y'know.
Nuclear disarmament is a long process. You can't think that the 3 weeks since the UN meeting is enough time y'know.

he didnt get it yet right? hes just nominated, if im correct. it would be weird if he would win...

[InsaneApache]

he didnt get it yet right? hes just nominated, if im correct. it would be weird if he would win...

US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

[Fixiwee]

he didnt get it yet right? hes just nominated, if im correct. it would be weird if he would win...

No he won.

@Count. Have you listend to the speech in Cairo and are you aware on the efect it had on the relationship between the muslim world and the USA?

edit: As far as I know, the peace nobel prize is awared for the endavor, not the results. And you can't argue that Obama is not trying to improve the worlds situation.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Quite extraordinary.

The Nobel Peace committee has long bounced between respectability and sheer political fawning (with occasional visits to La-la Land) but this is weird even by their standards.

Good intentions are the road to Hell, not to a Peace prize. If President Obama wants to show class and his commitment to change, he'll refuse the award. In his shoes, I'd be too embarrassed to show up.

[Ser Clegane]

If President Obama wants to show class and his commitment to change, he'll refuse the award. In his shoes, I'd be too embarrassed to show up.

It would probably have been a good idea to already decline when the nomination became public, this would have helped to avoid this odd situation.

At the risk of being repetitive - this is indeed a very odd decision.
It actually even robs Obama of the chance to receive this honor for potential tangible achievements a couple of years down the road which would be much more satisfying.

A gesture to show that he is on the right track? Nice - but a complete waste IMHO. He receives enough praise already - and no matter whether this praise is justified or not, at this point it seems completely unnecessary to throw in a Nobel prize to hammer the point home.

I am rather disappointed...

[Husar]

It still seems weird even to me, if it's just about effort you could just as well give it to me, I'm really thinking about world peace often and haven't hurt any muslims.

And what Banquo just said.

[Furunculus]

i have "yes we can" tatooed on my manly parts, and i bought a dish-dash when i was last on holiday in foreign parts, can i have one too?

[InsaneApache]

No you can't.

[Viking]

My initial thought is that this is ridiculous. At a later time, maybe..