Obama, Nobel prize?

[Samapico]

I don't follow US politics much, but did he really accomplish anything nobel prize-worthy yet? Shouldn't they at least wait until the end of his term or something?

Either they were simply out of candidates this year, or they needed to put the Nobel prize organization back on the news. I mean... I have no idea who won the last nobel prizes, and I hadn't heard about them for a while.

 

(Yeah it's not a very original topic as it's on every other forum and blog, but whatever, I'm curious to see what you guys think about it)

[SeVeR]

1. They were doing it to get the prize publicity.

2. This cheapens the whole thing and makes it worthless.

3. I'm sure Obama wants to do something worthy of the prize, and the committee should have waited until he had done that.

[Dr Brain]

The voting actually ended two weeks into his term. So not only had he done nothing, he had done *nothing*.

[NBVegita]

Agreed.

 

I mean the deadline for nomination was January 31st, that gave him 11 days.

 

Not to say that at some point he may not deserve to win the award, but at this point it's simply political grandstanding.

[»Blocks]

From my perspective, President Obama should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize. If it was a political move by the selection committee, it certainly wasn't a very smart one. However, I understand Obama is perceived differently throughout the rest of the world than he is even by his supporters in the United States. From that perspective, it may have seemed more appropriate to award him the Prize.

[Synister]

He called Kanye West a jackass... that's worth a Nobel Prize in my book.

 

But in all seriousness.. Obama didn't do anything and got a Nobel Prize? That's crap?

[L.C.]

Obama didn't do anything to get the prize. Plus there were 203 other people in the line-up for this, and surely there is at least one person within that 203 that truly deserved the prize.

[Aileron]

Well, look at the other recent recipients: Jimmy Carter & Al Gore. Apparently the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes politicians with a successful career in the Democratic Party. By that standard Obama certainly deserves the prize.

 

The only real injustice is the name of the prize. It should be named "Democratic National Recognition Medal" or something like that.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Samapico
Fixed double post

[»Blocks]

Well, look at the other recent recipients: Jimmy Carter & Al Gore. Apparently the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes politicians with a successful career in the Democratic Party. By that standard Obama certainly deserves the prize.

 

The only real injustice is the name of the prize. It should be named "Democratic National Recognition Medal" or something like that.

Don't knock on Jimmy Carter. He certainly didn't get the prize because he was a successful Democratic politician.

 

Your complaints about Democrats receiving Nobel Peace Prizes implies that you either think more Republicans should receive it, or that you have some trouble seeing that someone can be honored for their peaceful endeavors irrespective of their political affiliation.

[Sneakerz]

or that certain democrats didn't deserve it as much as certain republicans.... i.e. Reagan

[Aileron]

'irrespective of their political affiliation'? That is what I want. When we got three big dems in a row, two of which didn't really *do* anything, I'd have to call bulls___ on the whole nomination process. I'll even let you have Carter. He took action. However, Gore made a movie which 'inspires others to take action regarding Global Warming.' In my book, the Prize should have gone to those others who took action.

 

Frankly, I don't like seeing any politician getting the award. They take Oaths. Its their job. Its what they are supposed to be doing *anyway*. If they go above and beyond the call of duty, that's one thing, but when its being awarded to someone for taking office, that's another.

 

Sorry, but the Nobel Peace Prize has become a cheap trinket.

[Chambahs]

Fighting and striving through his whole life to get to senate and then being the -first- black president ever in US history, showing a glimmer of hope to the rest of the minorities, showing them that it can be done and to not give up, and that america really -is- the land of opportunity, showing everyone that you can make anything happen as long as you believe in it enough and fight for it. Certainly that deserves a prize.

 

 

.....or something like that im guessing they were going for.

[Dr Brain]

His personal struggle should have no bearing on the Nobel Peace Prize. It's about how much you've done for peace, not about how much you've bettered your own personal life.

[Chambahs]

Oh, thats right, well, there goes that idea

[Bak]

Didn't he make some partial nuclear disarmament deal with Russia? Controversially side against Israel when it comes to building settlements on Palestinian lands, settlements which make permanent middle-east peace much more difficult? Ease cold-war era travel restrictions to Cuba? Reaccess a missile defense system that was making Russia, which still has thousands of nuclear weapons, anxious? Generally engage not only our friends, but our historical opponents?

 

I agree it's probably not deserving of the prize, but you guys were making it sound like he's done absolutely nothing related to world peace.

 

The voting actually ended two weeks into his term.

Are you referring to the voting for the nomination, or the voting for the prize? Source?

[Dr Brain]

Generally engage not only our friends, but our historical opponents?

He's certainly alienated our closest allies. But somehow I don't think that's what you meant by engage.

 

The voting actually ended two weeks into his term.

Are you referring to the voting for the nomination, or the voting for the prize? Source?

There were 11 days between his inauguration and his nomination for the prize (two weeks was generous by 20%). About half of the news articles I've read have mentioned that figure. I'm too lazy to find a non-controversial one to link to.

[Bak]

He's certainly alienated our closest allies.

link?

[Dr Brain]

He's certainly alienated our closest allies.

link?

 

NOTE: I'm pulling a lot of these subjects from memory, and googling for articles talking about them. The links themselves may not be totally on topic.

 

UK: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/02/15/obama-disses-brits-will-media-miss http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6008.4398.0.0

Israel: http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/05/us-will-allow-iran-to-continue-nuclear.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/obama-world-dont-expect-america-fix/

India: http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/17/obama-india-elections-opinions-columnists-bush.html http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/ED-INDI01_20090930-230002/296695/

Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_feeds_allies_to_bear_PMpzvTatl7WiRqyYL3ZtvJ

Mexico: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/17/obama-faces-trade-war-mexico-truck-ban/

 

I seem to recall an incident with Obama telling Japan we wouldn't help against North Korean missiles, but can't find a link to an article.

[PoLiX]

Not the churchill bs again... Heard enough about this crap at work...

From the website dedicated to churchill: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/529-winston-is-back-in-eight-volumns - The only mention from the BBC about it, and barely anything - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7922428.stm - And why not another Britain news paper, the telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html - Funny how its all being blown out of proportion here at home. And they did have a meeting and no issues.

 

I actually liked the ones on Israel. Seriously. Its time for them to put on their big boy pants and survive or fail.

 

India I haven't paid much attention to.

 

So, because we're trying to make amends with another world super power, we're wrong? On top of that, I'd find an alliance with russia far more valuable than one with the czechs, polish, or georgians. And as for people who say Russia has no right to invade Georgia, a country who's militia (or some might say terrorist) has led attacks against russian soldiers along the border, Terrorist attacks give no right to invade a country? Really? Mind explaining Afghanistan to me? Or Iraq (without using WMD as they have already said they we're wrong in believing we're there and it was more Iraq's ties to terrorism)?

 

Mexico... the country who is complaining because we are sending illegal immigrants back home?

 

And I remember him saying he wouldn't support Japan in a undiplomatic approach with North Korea as they had begun hinting at going in and disarming them. We have too many military bases in japan (including a brand new naval facility which is a detachment of the one I work at) to just let North Korea shoot missiles at them, but he'd rather go the route of diplomacy first.

 

I'm neither for nor against the guy. But seriously, stop and think about this crap from a middle ground perspective for a minute.

[L.C.]

Why did Obama accept the prize? I think this goes to show a little something about his [personal] character.

[Dr Brain]

So, because we're trying to make amends with another world super power, we're wrong?

 

Selling out allies to enemies is the definition of wrong.

[Bak]

Why did Obama accept the prize?

It comes with a million dollar cash prize which he's giving to charity. You obviously hate charity.

[PoLiX]

Why did Obama accept the prize? I think this goes to show a little something about his [personal] character.

 

Do you actually even know what the whole "PRIZE" part of the nobel prize is?

[rootbear75]

Mexico... the country who is complaining because we are sending illegal immigrants back home?

That made my day when i first read an article on it.

 

 

Oh and not to mention who started this swine flu epidemic... pandemic?

[»Lynx]

The voting actually ended two weeks into his term. So not only had he done nothing, he had done *nothing*.

 

In a recent story,BBC News 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". "It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done" He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms.

 

With this in mind, Obama noted that him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize was a 'call to action', if anything the prize shows that he is supported world wide by his actions.

 

Obama didn't do anything to get the prize. Plus there were 203 other people in the line-up for this, and surely there is at least one person within that 203 that truly deserved the prize.

 

Would you like to mention somebody else who's done more for global peace recently?

 

Well, look at the other recent recipients: Jimmy Carter & Al Gore. Apparently the Nobel Peace Prize recognizes politicians with a successful career in the Democratic Party. By that standard Obama certainly deserves the prize.

 

The only real injustice is the name of the prize. It should be named "Democratic National Recognition Medal" or something like that.

 

This comment is merely political bias, and easy to foresee. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 90 times to 120 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2009 – 97 times to individuals and 23 times to organisations. It would only be ignorant to *ever assume that the prize is only significant to American politics, and it's no secret that the democrats are often well, more democratic and therefore more deserving of the prize.

 

The fact is that Obama has done many things during the beginning of his political career, most of which were in the interests of diplomacy, human-rights and overall peacefulness show that Obama has done something. Some of which from the top of my head (and I don't really pay attention to politics anymore) include signing an order to suspend and shut down Guantanamo Bay detention facility ending the practice of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, of which are declared as inhumane by the United Nations; working towards nuclear non-proliferation and instituting an 18-month withdrawal window for combat forces in Iraq. These are all fully tangible accomplishments that Obama has achieved, and onto some more unquantifiable accomplishments; Obama has been taking steps to repair foreign relations through policy, and international conferences, and looking at another statistic: Obama now holds the record for most countries visited by any president during their first year. Rest assured these were not vacations but trips centered on the aforementioned international conferences, the G20 summit and the NATO summit. With all of this in mind it's blatantly clear that Obama has done something to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but ultimately in order for one to understand Obamas worthiness to the award, we should understand the spirit in which it was initially bestowed. If you read the Will of Alfred Nobel, you will notice the following exerpt:

 

"[the nobel peace prize will 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 and promotion of peace congresses." - I think that alone shows that Obama is definitely 'worthy'.