Ummm... :o
I'm pretty much speechless about this.
As a Norwegian, and as an Obama supporter, I still think this has got to be the stupidest decision ever by the Nobel Committee. The man has been in office for 9 months, and what has he accomplished? Sure, he's given a few nice speeches, and foreign leaders like him better than Bush. But does that qualify him for what used to be the most prestigious award in the world?
Just like when Gore won the prize, I can't help to think that awarding it on such slim merits has more to do with the Norwegian committee trying to inject itself into American politics in a partisan manner. Hey guys! Bush is out of office. Using this opportunity to give him yet another kick in the pants is a childish waste of an award.
In a few years, if actions follow his words, if he stays true to the ideals he invokes, and if his approach to world politics is proving effective, then I'd be happy to see Obama considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I just feel embarrassed for my country and for him, and angry that the committee has tarnished and diminished a symbol for beliefs and policies I hold dear.
I may be a bit harsh and cynical here, but for me it looks like these prizes are actually used for PR reasons. :-\
One of my co-workers walked in a few minutes ago and announced this. Without missing a beat, two others said (at the same time), "For what?"
Seriously. What the hell has he done? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Very strange.
He shouldn't have accepted it, now he'll never win one legitimately. He'll always be 'the guy who got an award for being black'
Should have given it to some Iranian computer hackers or something, at least that's got people talking.
Wow, he got the Nobel Peace Prize for prolonging war in Iraq.
If that's not irony I don't know what is.
Quote
Seriously. What the hell has he done? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Funny you say that Ponch because that was the lead skit of last week's Saturday Night Live. Here is a link for those who may have missed it.
http://www.fancast.com/tv/Saturday-Night-Live/10009/1284525451/Ryan-Reynolds/videos
Quote from: Eggie on Fri 09/10/2009 17:03:00
He shouldn't have accepted it, now he'll never win one legitimately. He'll always be 'the guy who got an award for being black'
Plenty of black people have won nobel prizes.
The Nobel peace prize has often been a little wishy washy. Its more about promoting attitudes than actually 'doing something'
If you read the committees raitionale it seems fairly sensible. He has promoted diplomacy and free exchange of ideas.. sounds like peace to me.
The Iraq war is an unfortunate blemish...
Quote
The man has been in office for 9 months, and what has he accomplished?
As I understand it nominations must be submitted by February 1st so he would have been nominated several weeks after taking office. During February and March the committee evaluates the who of the nominees and eliminates those whose accomplishments are inadequate.
So the actual question is "What did Obama accomplish in the first after 2 months in office that merited the award?".
from - http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
(http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/images/nomination_pea.gif)
Quote
He has promoted diplomacy and free exchange of ideas.. sounds like peace to me.
He hasn't done any of that; he just talks about it.
The way to promote the use of diplomacy is to be successful at it by getting the things you want out of it; not by giving away the store and getting nothing return. A case can be made that ineffective diplomacy does more harm than good by establishing a position of weakness and further entrenching the other party's position with violence of one kind or another being the eventual outcome.
Nobel Committee members' tongues taste like Obama's ass now.
The commitee is smart enough to have anticipated the reaction, which suggests that it was designed more as an attempt to pin Obama to his rhetoric, rather than a pat on his back.
Quote from: RickJ on Fri 09/10/2009 18:47:21
As I understand it nominations must be submitted by February 1st so he would have been nominated several weeks after taking office. During February and March the committee evaluates the who of the nominees and eliminates those whose accomplishments are inadequate.
That just makes this whole episode even more bizarre.
On the other hand, it seems it's now become quite easy to get a Nobel prize. CJ's certainly done as much for world peace as any of us. Do any of you know how we can get him on the nomination list for next year?
Quote from: RickJ on Fri 09/10/2009 18:47:21
Quote
The man has been in office for 9 months, and what has he accomplished?
As I understand it nominations must be submitted by February 1st so he would have been nominated several weeks after taking office. During February and March the committee evaluates the who of the nominees and eliminates those whose accomplishments are inadequate.
So the actual question is "What did Obama accomplish in the first after 2 months in office that merited the award?".
Um, no, the actual question that follows from what you're saying is "Who are the other nominees, and why are their accomplishments small enough to be considered inadequate when compared to Obama's?"
If what you're saying is true, then the reason for him getting the award is not what Obama has accomplished, but the fact that nobody else that was nominated has accomplished more than him.
Quote from: Ponch on Fri 09/10/2009 19:48:48Do any of you know how we can get him on the nomination list for next year?
Simple. Have him stop doing anything but making promises. He'd be shoe-in for sure then!
Quote
Um, no, the actual question that follows from what you're saying is "Who are the other nominees, and why are their accomplishments small enough to be considered inadequate when compared to Obama's?"
Well you got me there. There were only 197 nominees for the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. Among them were Father John Dear, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dear) Hu Jia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jia_(activist)) Wei Jingsheng, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Jingsheng) ThÃch Quảng Độ, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Do) Mordechai Vanunu, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu) and the African Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union) whose lifes' works are clearly inadequate when compared with Obama's spectacular first 12 days in office.
For example Father John Dear, S.J. (//http://), who was nominated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (http://www.fatherjohndear.org/articles/Archibishop%20Tutu.htm), has written only twenty books on the subject, been arrested a mere 75 times for protesting for peace, and has devoted his life to changing the world.
In Archbishop Desmond Tutu's letter of nomination he says "He is a man who has the courage of his convictions and who speaks out and acts against war, the manufacture of weapons and any situation where a human being might be at risk through violence. Fr John Dear has studied and follows the teachings of non-violence as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., he serves the homeless and the marginalized and sees each person as being of infinite worth. I would hope that were he to receive this honor his teachings and activities might become more widely accepted and adopted. The world would undoubtedly become a better and more peaceful place if this were to happen."
I see what you mean, clearly inadequate, clearly. :=
I don't understand how a man who runs a country which is engaged in a war in another country can earn any kind of peace prize.
Devil's Advocate time!
http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-nobel-prize.html
Disclaimer: I did not write this, I'm just taking credit for posting it here.
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Fri 09/10/2009 22:18:20
I don't understand how a man who runs a country which is engaged in a war in another country can earn any kind of peace prize.
Well, they once gave this prize to Gorbachev, who brought a huge country to a dissolution, which was accompanied and followed by struggle between nationalistic powers and a number of bloody local conflicts.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 09/10/2009 20:23:38
Have him stop doing anything but making promises. He'd be shoe-in for sure then!
That's all there is to it? Hell, I've been promising my next game for over a year now and I still haven't delivered. I have a great track record of broken promises. I can't wait to get my Nobel! That kind of money can buy a lot of hookers!
- Ponch
By my calculations, if I release By the Sword, I can win the Nobel Peace Prize for 5 straight years.
I like the guy and hope he eventually chills on the idealism so he can get things done, but yea its still way too early...We get it World, you are happy he's not Bush.
The worst selection by far was the dude who invented the lobotomy (1940s I think).
Quote from: TerranRich on Sat 10/10/2009 06:17:31
By my calculations, if I release By the Sword, I can win the Nobel Peace Prize for 5 straight years.
The chances of either of those happening is very slim though!
Did his charismatic superpowers not single-handedly unite Black America into actually voting. As I understand it he go a lot of people passionate about politics and change.
Naturally, it's absurd that someone who supports the death penalty and currently wages a war in Afghanistan can earn the peace prize.
Then again, the fact that the world's biggest military power has elected a leader that isn't intellectually handicapped is so reassuring for the rest of the world that it's probably worthy of some sort of prize.
I find it curious that people even care. When was the last time anyone even thought of the Nobel Peace Prize? What about the other Nobel prizes? Are there people who won those that maybe didn't deserve it in comparison?
Does anyone here REALLY care? Do you hold the Nobel Peace Prize in such a high regard that it's worth getting upset over?
I mean shit, they gave the Peace Prize to Mother Theresa and she was horrible!
Yeah, good post Eric, why care!???
It was a very organised decision. It was used to cover up whatever really happened the same day when NASA smashed an orbiter into the moon. You'd think they'd perhaps seperate Nobel peace prize and the largest event in space history since the landing on Mars by at least a day?
I won't go into it. Great that Obama won it, sadly he doesn't actually deserve it yet - he's only been in office 10 months or so and he's really only passed 1 decent thing, and started work on the second - so yes, it was just a necessary diversion for whatever the USA was doing to the moon, because frankly IMO there's so little to go on as to why Obama would win that prize. And of course, being the controlling state that they are they had to keep the US public focussed on something different, oh and of course because they're a controlling state why not at the same time make sure the entire world is interested and seduced by this shit?
But whatever, you'll think I'm whack ;) And I'm bored of pointing out that the US government will always lie to its people when there's something to militarize (sp, may not even be a real world). I like Obama, I think he's just running the wrong country - one full of lying military pricks. No American or Englishman especially not politician should get the NPP, especially after the war in Iraq and stuff which still has no proper conclusion. But fuck it, lies, lies, lies! But let's all buy them because it makes great TV.
I was serious Andail and I think there's more than enough in my post to respond to without trying to use sarcasm to make me seem like an asshole.
Well, I for one think the Nobel Prize is a big deal. I'd say it's the greatest recognition and honor that can be bestowed on a person (or organization), and I believe it is widely seen as such.
Nobel Prize laureates certainly aren't all perfect, but when given to people with checkered careers, the prize is always for some specific, major effort or achievement for peace. As for Mother Teresa, she devoted her life to caring for the sick, poor and dying. There's a lot I disagree with her about, and you can question specific aspects of her work, but on the whole I believe she was a worthy winner.
So I don't think Obama leading a war in Afghanistan (or other grubby business that comes with the job) necessarily disqualifies him for the Nobel Prize. The committee are realists, they don't expect a winner to singlehandledly end all war. But since he is responsible for an ongoing conflict, there needs to be some other major peace-making action to point to to justify his win. And Obama simply hasn't done anything that merits a Nobel Prize.
I thought it was ridiculous when Al Gore won the award (apart from writing a book and starring in a film, he's done very little of substance for the environment, and besides, the Nobel Prize isn't an environmental award in the first place; Jimmy Carter on the other hand definitely deserved it), but at least you had some idea of what he was getting it for.
Ok sorry Eric, that was a bit childish I guess.
But I've always found it mildly annoying when people are having a discussion in a thread and someone barges in and asks how they can bother.
I just don't see the need to take that position.
Maybe you don't see why anyone would take that position but it's an equally valid stance to those who are against/for the discussion.
I'm also of the opinion that it's not worth getting worked up over, for the same reasons Eric has mentioned - the peace prize doesn't really mean much nowadays - and this just shows exactly why.
I didn't mean the position to not consider the peace prize important, I meant the position you take when you enter a thread just to question why people who are into that particular discussion can bother to discuss it.
I think it's bad forum conduct, end of story.
So, yes, Voh, it's a perfectly valid stance not to care about the peace prize, and I can't say it's ruined my life and given me nightmares either, but if people are having a discussion, they apparently care about the subject to some extent, so why question that.
I see what Andail is saying and endorse his message. Unfortunately, by that same token this probably disqualifies me from the discussion since I'm not contributing anything!
WHAT JUST HAPPENED?
I can understand both Eric's and Andail's points. Both have their pros and cons. I would like to find a time/place where the three of us can sit down and discuss this very important issue (and maybe even high-five with some children).
Now can I win the nobel peace prize?
Quoteand maybe even high-five with some children
What good would slapping children with other children do, Darth? Man, you have some weeeeird habits.
I did not mean for it to seem like I was barging into a thread and declaring everyone was dumb. So I apologize if I came off that way. I think there's a pretty good record of me hating the shit out of people that do that also.
What I meant by 'people' was more than people in this thread. I think it's a guarantee that there are people in the world [or this forum] that could care less about the Peace Prize, never give it a thought and when it was awarded last year didn't even bother to find out why the person won it, but as soon as they learned that Obama won it, all of the sudden it's very important to get answers as to WHY!!?! What did he do??!!?
I was making an honest query which I now fear was easily misinterpreted, posters in this thread seem to care and I'm curious as to why? What is the perceived impact of this prize being awarded?
Quote
I think it's a guarantee that there are people in the world [or this forum] that could care less about the Peace Prize, never give it a thought and when it was awarded last year didn't even bother to find out why the person won it, but as soon as they learned that Obama won it, all of the sudden it's very important to get answers as to WHY!!?! What did he do??!!?
To be honest I thought Snarky answered that question quit eloquently in his opening post.
That's cool, I didn't I guess!
I'm in complete agreement with MrColossal. This is the first time on these forums that I can recall that we've had a discussion of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm not a huge fan of these types of awards anyway. They're purely subjective, mostly always political, and they commonly leave several "just as deserving" people out.
However, I also disagree with the sentiment that Obama has not accomplished much of anything. That he's a man that just makes a pretty speech and that's about it. For one, I think a lot of what he has to do will take years to accomplish or years to see results. Two, it's not an easy feat to do with the USAs volatile political environment, where you have to concede some political battles now to win more important ones in the future. Three, the power of words and speeches is often times underestimated. I've seen situations where a few well placed words have completely changed the mood of everyone in a tension filled room. Four, while we are still fighting in Afghanistan, under Obama there's fundamental difference in our strategic goals. There's a lot more diplomacy going on behind the scenes, and there's a clearer goal as to what we are accomplishing. It may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the nebulous goals of yesterpresident.
I think loominous hit the nail on the head...
QuoteThe commitee is smart enough to have anticipated the reaction, which suggests that it was designed more as an attempt to pin Obama to his rhetoric, rather than a pat on his back.
Perhaps Obama has not done enough to warrant the award. But if this award helps to keep Obama at his word, it's far more important to give it to him now, where it can potentially have the most impact on the future (since it's early in his presidency) than later. I don't think there's any need to feel ashamed of this award. If anything, I think this award is being used exactly as it's founder intended, to bring about peace.
I go back to my first point, though. I can't name the last five winners off the top of my head, can you?
-MillsJROSS
I think the reason why this is the only time I can remember where we're talking about the Nobel Peace Price and who is being awarded it, is because this is the only time the decision involves a world leader and is such a questionable decision that it attracts the attention of people everywhere.
There are lots of important things we never talk about on the forums (and there's a whole bunch of unimportant stuff we constantly talk about too). I don't see how that's proof of anything.
Last year was that Finnish guy, Matti Ahtisari (sp?), and the year before that must have been when Al Gore won. Beyond that it kind of blurs together. I remember Kofi Annan, the South Korean president, Jimmy Carter, those two guys from Northern Ireland (Hume and Trimble?), Doctors Without Borders... but those were all probably further back than five years...
As for Obama, do you really think it's realistic to expect that the weight of his responsibility to live up to the Nobel Peace Prize is going to affect his decisions to any great degree? On the contrary, I would argue that it would be more effective to hold it out as a possible prize for doing the right thing (and compensation for whatever political cost there would be to him). And honestly, "much better than George Bush" is an awfully low bar. The fact that it will take years for him to make substantial headway (or not!) is just another argument for why this award was premature.
My point isn't to critique why we're talking about this now. I understand why it's a topic of conversation. My point is merely to say, maybe we shouldn't be foaming at our mouths in anger at this news.
It just seems that given the importance some people have put to this award ceremony, it's strange that we've never heard their elation of a good pick in previous years.
We can argue back and forth as to whether or not awarding this him now will push him in the right direction. I think it's pointless to do so, since only time will tell. However, I don't think the award was a dangling carrot Obama was constantly running towards, and would have steered him in the right direction either.
It has at the very least peaked my interest and allowed me to look at some history. In the will of Alfred Nobel he talks about parceling the award money out in five chunks, the peace prize goes as follows...
Quoteand one part 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.
Barack Obama has strongly been working to try to be more diplomatic and work together with other nations and has been pushing for peace talks in Israel and "Palestine". He stopped the US from torture. He set a timetable to remove troops from Iraq. Was in the forefront when North Korea launched a missile, condemning them and ordering sanctions, and condemned Iran when their secret nuclear facility was revealed. Allowed Cuban Americans to travel more and send money to their loved ones. He has also been fighting for nuclear proliferation.
I think we can at least stop pretending that he's done absolutely nothing to deserve this award. That this does not diminish the Nobel Peace Prize, unless he does a 180 and starts warmongering all over the place (not likely). That in the end who wins American Idol has been far more newsworthy the past five years.
-MillsJROSS