Obama, Nobel prize?

[Dr Brain]

and it's no secret that the democrats are often well, more democratic and therefore more deserving of the prize.

 

I disagree with your premise, but even so, how are democracy and peace synonymous? If that were the case, one could never hope to have peace while there are non-democratic nations on the earth, like China, Russia and Iran (the people he's supposedly making peace *with*).

 

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'.

I like the fact that everything you cited either didn't happen at all, or happened more than 11 days into his term.

[»Lynx]

and it's no secret that the democrats are often well, more democratic and therefore more deserving of the prize.

I disagree with your premise, but even so, how are democracy and peace synonymous? If that were the case, one could never hope to have peace while there are non-democratic nations on the earth, like China, Russia and Iran (the people he's supposedly making peace *with*).

 

I wasn't saying that democracy and peace were synonymous, I was suggesting that those with democratic traits are more likely to come to rational agreements as opposed to the nonsensical disagreements an oppressive dictator would ensue onto the people of his/her country, with that in mind are you suggesting that China, Russia and Iran are peaceful, free countries?

 

Also, as I had already mentioned I am not as interested in politics as I once was, but what never happened at all?

 

And to the whole 11 days into term line, I had already mentioned Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said they "would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

[Dr Brain]

And to the whole 11 days into term line, I had already mentioned Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said they "would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

 

[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.

 

Where does it say it'll go to the guy who's been trying the most?

 

Personally, I don't care that he got it. The nobel prizes lost all meaning when Al Gore got one. I just like to argue with people that are defending the decision to give it to Obama.

[NBVegita]

Not for nothing but:

 

Obama closing Gitmo: Yes he physically closed the facility and simply moved all of the prisoners to different facilities of the same security. Yes he denounced the "enhanced interrogation" but that is simply political grandstanding. Also simply closing Gitmo does nothing to effect our policies. It's one facility. Again why I say it's political grandstanding. You could just as efficiently "ended enhanced interrogation" buy simply changing out the staff of the facility, but by closing it, you end the bad correlation with the name, nothing more. Not to say it's right or wrong, but as long as there are humans and war there will be enhanced interrogation techniques. I'm sure Obama will make sure that if it's done, it's done much less publicly.

 

Working towards non-proliferation: He hasn't changed his policies at all since the Bush administration on that one. I do believe even Sever was complaining about that noting that Obama is still pursuing sanctions against Iran over the issue. Not saying that's bad, but it's not an accomplishment.

 

Pulling out of Iraq: It's great that he committed to pulling soldiers out of Iraq, but he's simply displacing them to Afghanistan. Again not saying that it's the wrong move, but he's just playing a slight of hand trick there.

 

As for Obama visiting countries: Yes that's great to visit the countries, but many countries have come out publicly saying that although they appreciate the gesture of him coming to talk with them, that talk is cheap and they won't believe the "change" in the United States until they can see the actions being done and not talked about. Again great to keep open dialogue, but there is a world of difference between talk and resolution.

 

So I would have to strongly disagree that it's blatantly clear, in fact I would say it's the opposite. The Nobel Prize, like anything else has been completely politicized. They may be giving it in support of what they hope Obama can achieve, but that IS NOT the spirit of the prize. For all we know Obama could be the most corrupt politician in the history of the U.S. or he could be the next coming of Jesus. Regardless of what he might be, you need to award him once you can discover what he will be. Again not to say that he eventually would not warrant the nomination or prize, but at this point it's pure political grandstanding.

 

Oh and:

 

and it's no secret that the democrats are often well, more democratic and therefore more deserving of the prize.

 

Cough...BULLSHIT...Cough...

 

First Democrat != Democracy.

 

Second Republican != Republic.

 

Third your political affiliation has nothing to do with the person you are or what you stand for.

 

Fourth BULLSHIT!

 

Personally, I don't care that he got it. The nobel prizes lost all meaning when Al Gore got one. I just like to argue with people that are defending the decision to give it to Obama.

 

I thoroughly agree.

Edited October 26, 2009 by NBVegita

[Chambahs]

GORE FTW

[»Lynx]

Obama closing Gitmo: Yes he physically closed the facility and simply moved all of the prisoners to different facilities of the same security. Yes he denounced the "enhanced interrogation" but that is simply political grandstanding. Also simply closing Gitmo does nothing to effect our policies. It's one facility. Again why I say it's political grandstanding. You could just as efficiently "ended enhanced interrogation" buy simply changing out the staff of the facility, but by closing it, you end the bad correlation with the name, nothing more. Not to say it's right or wrong, but as long as there are humans and war there will be enhanced interrogation techniques. I'm sure Obama will make sure that if it's done, it's done much less publicly.

 

Ehrm, no - he closed the facility which doesn't abide by the same rules and regulations as any other facility under American jurisdiction, and a high number of prisoners have already been moved to prisons within their own countries giving them the right to a fair trial - whereas in the case of Gitmo a lot of prisoners who were allegedly connected with terrorism weren't even entitled to protection from the Geneva Conventions. So, no I call bullshit to your watered down version of closing Gitmo - it's not political grandstanding, that is merely your opinion - which obviously differs from the clear majority of news outlets, political scientists and those who awarded Obama the nobel peace prize (which I have already mentioned, more than once, was not for actions he has made, but the actions that he is trying to - and succeeding to make).

 

Also your point on 'as long as there are humans and war there will be enhanced interrogation techniques' is completely moot. I could write up a whole passage about how morally retarded it is to say something like that, but instead, “our ideals give us the strength and moral high ground” - Obama. If you think it's acceptable to use the enhanced interrogation techniques used in Gitmo, then you simply stand for what's wrong in humanity - no matter how you put it you're a dog if you can sink that low.

 

Working towards non-proliferation: He hasn't changed his policies at all since the Bush administration on that one. I do believe even Sever was complaining about that noting that Obama is still pursuing sanctions against Iran over the issue. Not saying that's bad, but it's not an accomplishment.

 

Well maybe you should consider that non-proliferation isn't something that can happen over night, although you can't argue that he isn'tmaking progress.

 

Pulling out of Iraq: It's great that he committed to pulling soldiers out of Iraq, but he's simply displacing them to Afghanistan. Again not saying that it's the wrong move, but he's just playing a slight of hand trick there.

 

Reliable source to your claim please? Every site I've looked upon has noted that he is attempting to pull forces from Iraq, although it will be hard to, and he hopes to have the majority out by August 2010 (bearing in mind that's just under a year away).

 

As for Obama visiting countries: Yes that's great to visit the countries, but many countries have come out publicly saying that although they appreciate the gesture of him coming to talk with them, that talk is cheap and they won't believe the "change" in the United States until they can see the actions being done and not talked about. Again great to keep open dialogue, but there is a world of difference between talk and resolution.

 

So you believe that there is a world of difference between talk and resolution - I believe that talking is the first step towards not just resolution, but progression. Although you say countries have publicly said that Obamas talk is cheap (I couldn't find anything about that, sources please?) - from what I could find plenty of credible pol.scientists/advisors would speak completely to the contrary, for example Aaron David Miller who has mentioned that Obama has already improved the atmosphere for cooperation with Russia, which is key to diplomatic efforts to curb Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.

 

So I would have to strongly disagree that it's blatantly clear, in fact I would say it's the opposite. The Nobel Prize, like anything else has been completely politicized. They may be giving it in support of what they hope Obama can achieve, but that IS NOT the spirit of the prize. For all we know Obama could be the most corrupt politician in the history of the U.S. or he could be the next coming of Jesus. Regardless of what he might be, you need to award him once you can discover what he will be. Again not to say that he eventually would not warrant the nomination or prize, but at this point it's pure political grandstanding.

 

So you say that it is not the spirit of the prize, do you believe that MLKJr also never deserved to win the prize - when he won it literally *no civil rights improvements were made, however he won it for a HOPE of peace - same story with Obama. As far as I can tell the majority of people believe that Obama may well deserve the prize further down the line, but not right now. If that's your interpretation of the spirit of the prize then so be it, although mine obviously differs.

[SeVeR]

Someone's been reading right-wing blogs again...

 

Anyway, I wouldn't care if Obama had put every single one of the troops he removed from Iraq into Afghanistan. It's not a matter of which war was popular and which wasn't, it's the fact that one war was ILLEGAL and the other wasn't.

[Dr Brain]

Lynx, those people *can't* be covered by the Geneva Convention, as they weren't wearing soldier's uniforms. They especially weren't wearing soldier's uniforms of a country that signed the Geneva Convention. There are a hundred other reasons they can't be covered, but those two should be enough to shut you up about that.

[»Lynx]

Lynx, those people *can't* be covered by the Geneva Convention, as they weren't wearing soldier's uniforms. They especially weren't wearing soldier's uniforms of a country that signed the Geneva Convention. There are a hundred other reasons they can't be covered, but those two should be enough to shut you up about that.

 

Actually, no those reasons aren't enough to shut me up about that - the Geneva Convention was used as a loophole to imprison peoples who were I reiterate were allegedly accused of terrorism/had connections with al-qaeda etc., and therefore were often held purgatory for years before being found innocent.

 

A classic example of this happening is when Mohammed Akhtiar was imprisoned for three years due to the completely false intelligence that American troops had when they dragged him out of his home in 2003, held him for three years in captivity where not only did he receive the first class Gitmo treatment from the guards, he was also attacked by the inmates as even they knew the U.S. Govt. had the wrong guy.

 

The Geneva Convention not covering those America imprisoned for alleged terrorism is not a right for America to not provide competent tribunals, as it has done for years with Gitmo, and reinforces why closing Gitmo was an excellent time for those who give a shit about human rights.

[Aileron]

Lynx, I wasn't claiming the Nobel Peace Prize was biased from 1901 to 2009. I'm just saying its been biased from 2006 to 2009.

 

Gitmo was in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Also, keep in mind that even according to the Geneva Conventions, POWs need not be tried to identify their status as POWs, AND they don't have to be released until the war is over, in which case the Global War on Terror against radical Islam won't be over for a *very* long time. If we *did* classify them as POWs, we could treat them like soldiers, meaning putting them through such 'cruelties' as making them stand at attention for a long period of time, or run a few miles, or the like. So, even if you got past Dr Brain, you *still* need to shut up.

 

Your 'source' is a wiki...it could have been written by *anyone*.

 

Okay, we don't want prisoners making routine video conferences to the world. Why? Because we don't want them sending hidden signals to their buddies. Duh. Every country does that with any person in any jail.

 

There was NO evidence of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, but in politics a lie told 1000 times becomes a truth, so it has become accepted. Also, by the time President Obama got sworn into office, all of the non-dangerous guys, and some of the dangerous ones who did indeed pick up an AK 47 and turn right back around and shoot at us a second time, were released or sent to another country. Also, keep in mind we do have a problem in that a lot of the countries we want to send these guys to don't *want* to accept them, and we also have problems picking a country of origin for terrorists who lived international lives.

 

 

As for Iraq, we are reaching the point where we can call it a 'win' anyway. The Iraqi government is stable and their police and military are competent enough to handle any homegrown threats. We'll probably keep a handful of advisers and support personnel to keep all the foreign terrorists out, and if any foreign power tries a hostile takeover I'm sure we can react to that within hours.

 

 

SeVeR, I cannot make opinionated comments, but will point several facts that cannot be denied. First, the realms of the political, popular, and legal make a poor basis for determining a strategy in a time of war. Also, since Sept 11th we have been in a *Global* War on Terrorism which goes beyond any national boundaries. Finally, Afghanistan has a history of defeating foreign superpowers since ancient Greece, while all the historical nations which encompassed modern-day Iraq haven't been able to keep any foreign superpower out.

 

And to correct the record, Obama is *considering* sending troops to Afghanistan, and even if he fulfills Gen McCrystal's full request, he would still be bringing a lot more troops back from Iraq than is being sent to Afghanistan. You can't really call it a simple transfer.

[L.C.]

Your 'source' is a wiki...it could have been written by *anyone*.

I didn't really read anything here, but this popped out to me since it is a phrase I have heard of before. If this matters:

 

1) You underestimate the intelligence of the Internet and the people who try to prevent vandalism.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_Wikipedia

 

EDIT :: Oh wait, that's wikileaks. The above was a defense for Wikipedia. I thought you were talking about Wikipedia. X_x

 

EDIT2 :: In case if anyone is wondering, I am not necessarily implying anything about wikileaks. If it would make you comfortable, consider this post as "political masturbation" or something.

 

*resumes observation on psychological phenomenons in this thread*

 

EDIT3 :: PS, the discussion in this thread is amazing. This thread IS amazing. (The discussion is hardcore, definitely not for most people. Keep at it.)

 

EDIT4 ::

in politics a lie told 1000 times becomes a truth, so it has become accepted

Hitler said that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, the people will believe it.

 

Then there's also the phrase that history repeats itself, and history is a set of made-up lies, and "circus and bread" (refer to the Roman and Greek empires), ...

 

EDIT5 ::

Someone's been reading right-wing blogs again...

And you haven't been reading left-wing blogs again?

 

My my, what does this all come down to?

 

EDIT6 :: I have come to realize that this is actually a very good place to get some experience in being confronted by and encountering multiple/different points of views from one's own.

Edited October 28, 2009 by L.C.

[»Lynx]

Lynx, I wasn't claiming the Nobel Peace Prize was biased from 1901 to 2009. I'm just saying its been biased from 2006 to 2009.

 

The changes to the Nobel Committee within your time frame are insignificant to show bias, and not to mention how pointless it is for a Norwegian committee to be biased when it comes to political affairs that don't effect them in any reasonable way. I can only shrug off your claim of bias as an opinion with no pragmatic backing.

 

Gitmo was in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Also, keep in mind that even according to the Geneva Conventions, POWs need not be tried to identify their status as POWs, AND they don't have to be released until the war is over, in which case the Global War on Terror against radical Islam won't be over for a *very* long time. If we *did* classify them as POWs, we could treat them like soldiers, meaning putting them through such 'cruelties' as making them stand at attention for a long period of time, or run a few miles, or the like. So, even if you got past Dr Brain, you *still* need to shut up.

 

The very point is that if you're not declared as a POW, then the U.S. is allowed to commit interrogation techniques outside of the scope of the Third Geneva Convention, which is my damn problem in the first place. If you're going to sit there and argue that standing at attention or running a few miles is worse than the cruelties via enhanced interrogation techniques used in Gitmo, then all I have to say is that there must be something wrong with you. Add that to my other points, and I believe it's time for you to shut up.

 

Your 'source' is a wiki...it could have been written by *anyone*.

 

You either don't know what Wikileaks is, or are trying to find silly loopholes out of something which has been cited all over the news as being a real document used by prison guards, leading to water boarding as a torture method.

 

Here's another link, just for the hell of it.

 

Okay, we don't want prisoners making routine video conferences to the world. Why? Because we don't want them sending hidden signals to their buddies. Duh. Every country does that with any person in any jail.

 

I didn't see where I mentioned anything about routine video conferences, your sensationalist way of trying to belittle my points is just childish and on the whole, makes little sense whatsoever.

 

There was NO evidence of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, but in politics a lie told 1000 times becomes a truth, so it has become accepted. Also, by the time President Obama got sworn into office, all of the non-dangerous guys, and some of the dangerous ones who did indeed pick up an AK 47 and turn right back around and shoot at us a second time, were released or sent to another country. Also, keep in mind we do have a problem in that a lot of the countries we want to send these guys to don't *want* to accept them, and we also have problems picking a country of origin for terrorists who lived international lives.

 

There has been evidence, which even lead the US to admit there was prisoner abuse, even to the major cruelties as water boarding. And I need not mention how ironic it is that your Government has used illegal water boarding practices on inmates who, and I state again, have only been allegedly accused of terrorism - when not too long before three Japanese American citizens were hung for using the same practices on another person.

 

1 2 3 4.

 

And to correct the record, Obama is *considering* sending troops to Afghanistan, and even if he fulfills Gen McCrystal's full request, he would still be bringing a lot more troops back from Iraq than is being sent to Afghanistan. You can't really call it a simple transfer.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Lynx

[Dr Brain]

Lynx, I wasn't claiming the Nobel Peace Prize was biased from 1901 to 2009. I'm just saying its been biased from 2006 to 2009.

 

The changes to the Nobel Committee within your time frame are insignificant to show bias, and not to mention how pointless it is for a Norwegian committee to be biased when it comes to political affairs that don't effect them in any reasonable way. I can only shrug off your claim of bias as an opinion with no pragmatic backing.

 

Glad to know that unbiased people can't become biased, and that it takes entirely new people to make things become biased.

[»Lynx]

Lynx, I wasn't claiming the Nobel Peace Prize was biased from 1901 to 2009. I'm just saying its been biased from 2006 to 2009.

 

The changes to the Nobel Committee within your time frame are insignificant to show bias, and not to mention how pointless it is for a Norwegian committee to be biased when it comes to political affairs that don't effect them in any reasonable way. I can only shrug off your claim of bias as an opinion with no pragmatic backing.

 

Glad to know that unbiased people can't become biased, and that it takes entirely new people to make things become biased.

 

If you could provide evidence as to why Ole Danbolt Mjøs, Berger Ragnar Furre, Kaci Kullman Five, Sissel Rønbeck and Inger-Marie Ytterhorn would all be bias, heck if even any one of the above would be bias at all against the democrats between 2006 and 2009, I'd be inclined to listen to you. The simple fact is that no republican president has received the Nobel Prize since 1909, so again I really see no reason for claims of bias against the republicans, all that I can note is that a bunch of republicans are butt-hurt that none of their presidents have won the prize in over a century.

[SeVeR]

First, the realms of the political, popular, and legal make a poor basis for determining a strategy in a time of war. Also, since Sept 11th we have been in a *Global* War on Terrorism which goes beyond any national boundaries.

My favorite quote of the day.

 

1. You say that it is "a time of war". What is your definition of a war? Does a terrorist attack start a war when the terrorists were not governed by any particular state? Is it a war against the terrorists, or Afghanistan? You could say Afghanistan "harboured" them, but they had to live somewhere. But then, how does Iraq fit into this? There were no terrorists allowed to operate in Saddam's Iraq.

2. You say it's a Global war and that what is legal doesn't matter. So what, if any, rules are there? In your honest opinion do we have the right to enter any country and bomb their citizens if someone in our government/CIA determines they are a terrorist who wants to hurt America? That gives America the capacity to make up it's own rules and it's own intelligence and act on it wherever it wants. Do you trust the government that much?

Edited October 28, 2009 by SeVeR

[Dr Brain]

Let me get this straight, Sever, you don't trust the government over legal proceedings to the Iraq war, but as a liberal, you trust them with every aspect of your life?

[SeVeR]

Let me get this straight, Sever, you don't trust the government over legal proceedings to the Iraq war, but as a liberal, you trust them with every aspect of your life?

Oh, is this what liberals do?

 

Am I a liberal? Did I say I trust the government with anything? Quote me if I did. Liberals can be some of the dumbest people on the planet, surpassed only by environmentalists and the mentally ill.

 

I don't know what you're trying to get straight, but don't try and put words into my mouth for the purpose of belittling my opinions. You give yourself away.

Edited October 29, 2009 by SeVeR

[Aileron]

SeVeR, I will respond to your second point first in order to get back to the first one. The right of survival both of our lives and of our liberty, superceeds all others. Now, the prospect of Al Queda or the Taliban or Hezbollah or the like forming a large army and conquering us in the 'traditional' fashion is ludicrous, but rest assured they intend to conquer us nonetheless, using a technique both brand new and incredibly ancient...the 4 generation war. They aren't trying to beat us in Iraq today, they are emplace a world-wide caliphate at about 2060. These guys aren't simply guerrilla fighters and occasional nuts. We are fighting a deliberate, worldwide mass-movement.

 

Just observe what the Taliban has been doing in Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons. Through small scale coercion and indoctrination, they managed to get a chunk of the Pakistani populace to take up arms against the legitimate government. There are entire towns in Pakistan who don't fall under the Pakistani government.

 

Can this work in the west? Yes, it can. They have already set up small colonies in the slums of Germany in France where the police don't go and sharia law rules. Are they more of a threat than your typical gang-controlled sections of a city? Not currently, but street gangs don't have a long term plan or international support.

 

What this has to do with countries like Afghanistan and Iraq is that on the world wide front, taking over states is a requirement to Al Queda's end game. The final stage of a 4G does involve a conventional fight, and in order to do that Al Queda would have to control enough countries to make that possible.

 

 

There are two points I would like to make in summary. One is that fundamentalist Islam represents a very real threat to everyone's entire way of life. The second is that it wasn't a scenario of us going into Afghanistan to punish them for harboring criminals who attacked us. We went into Afghanistan because those criminals who attacked us controlled that country and we needed to deny them that asset.

 

 

Now, you know my opinion on Iraq, but you also know that I'm no longer allowed to state my opinion on it. I have been simply stating facts. I will also enter this: When you are talking about a 4G war, things like economics and resources ARE important and ARE worth fighting for because they become a large part of the ideological fight later. Its no secret that poor communities provide a good harbor for anti-governmental forces, and that you can control populations by controlling resources.

 

One of the things that helped to bring down Napoleon was the fact that Great Britain controlled the spice trade. Were it the other way around, Napoleon would have been able to conquer Great Britain with economics, and would have had more forces and more supplies available when he went into Russia due to a lack of a front in Spain and better trade routes. I'll stop there because I don't want to get bogged down in the 'what ifs' of history, but only use what actually happened as an example of why strategy is a long term cold-hearted thing rather than based upon what the latest polls say.

[»Lynx]

Lol.

 

There are parts of Germany and France where Sharia law applies. We're currently fighting a 4GW war. Pakistan is the enemy. There will be a world-wide caliphate at about 2060. We are fighting a deliberate, worldwide mass-movement. Yes, what happens in Pakistan can happen in the western world. Fundamentalist Islam represents a very real threat to everyone's entire way of life. I have been simply stating facts.

 

... Sigh.

[Simulacrum]

Lynx has covered most everything else, but I did want to call out Dr. Brain's "11-days" sleight of hand a bit more clearly: Obama was nominated, along with 203 other people, only eleven days after his inauguration. However, the final decision to award him the prize was made several months later. Claims that Obama was or should have been awarded only on the basis of those eleven days are thus remarkably dishonest, or, at best, ignorant. Edited December 19, 2009 by Simulacrum

[L.C.]

There was an article on Slashdot or Digg frontpage about how Obama was preparing to give his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

 

What a dipspit.

[Simulacrum]

Yeah. Uhh. That already happened. And why are you whining about it?

[Samapico]

There was an article on Slashdot or Digg frontpage about how public speakers usually prepare themselves before giving a speech.

 

omg noobs.

[L.C.]

My implication is that he doesn't even think he doesn't deserve it.

[»Lynx]

... So you're suggesting that he shouldn't prepare an acceptance speech? Lol