DescentBB

It seems now, with Obama \"The Wonderful\" being a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, that the prize in a Cracker Jack box has more meaning. Someone help me understand why a do nothing, indecisive, beta male like Obama is deserving of such an award?

Obama's calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_nobel_peace

Those are the reasons.

Prophecies of Nostradamus wrote:The Antichrist will spend many years working silently behind the scenes to consolodate his power, and make his appearance onto the international arena once the structure is in place. He will have planned carefully and the countries he goes against will be unprepared for his golden-tongued treachery.

This is a joke right? You checked your sources right?

See…I’m going to make a comment…then somebody else is going to post about internet rumors.

Because this “has” to be a JOKE!!!!!!!

If his health care plan works in the end, exactly as he was promising, then yes. Actually if it does he will then be my favorite president.

woodchip wrote:Someone help me understand why a do nothing, indecisive, beta male like Obama is deserving of such an award?

Sorry, man.


I got nothin'.

It would be a joke...if the Nobel organization wasn't.

I just thought of something. Trying to come up with a logical reason for selecting him for the award I can see the Europeans, being totally unimpressed with him so far and recognizing he's a naive man child with an ego so large it has it's own gravitational field, they found the perfect way to ridicule and diminish him publicly.

Then I remember they gave Al Gore a similar award for political reasons and so I have to return to the sad joke theory.

I can't comment on his administration's agendas for the US, but from an International perspective (or at least from my personal perspective) I can understand the sentiment behind the decision, even if the decision itself is premature.

Living on the outside of US foreign policy is not always an easy or pleasant experience, even in Australia (and we're a long time US ally). Having a reconciliatory / pro-active (hell even respectful) tone from the White House for both foes and friends alike is a breath of fresh air - you may need to live outside of the US for a time to fully apppreciate the considerable depth of this feeling.

Granted Obama has to represent US interests first (and it's soley up to the American voter to decide how well he does that) but this decision to me personally is a reflection of how much the rest of the world wanted Obama to win the Presidency over McCain ( For the record, McCain is a politician I grew to respect greatly during the election campaign and I don't doubt he would have made a fine President, at least as far as US interests are concerned.)

No doubt Obama's administration will have its problems, shortfalls and outright catastrophic failures (all administrations do to some extent) but one thing I believe the international community (and history) will be thankful for is Obama's central message of respect and conciliation in a decade which has been permiated by widespread distrust and rising paranoia on a global scale.

If the Nobel Peace Prize was soley a North American initative I don't doubt that the result would have been different. But it's an International Event - and the result is not as big a surprise as you might otherwise think.

So if I read those links correctly (and understand what I've seen and heard thus far in the media regarding this ... "matter" ...) this award to Obama is simply a nod, bow, figurative, and just a gesture of support for what Obama might be able to accomplish during his time as U.S. President ... whereas all previous award winners (including Gore?) had to earn it through monumental and historical actions and were awarded after the fact.

Will Robinson wrote:It would be a joke...if the Nobel organization wasn't.

Sadly, it's very much a joke now, all the way, through and through. They may have meant well, but they just removed the honorable distinction that award once held.

Im sorry, but to me this makes the Nobel Peace Prize meaningless. Id like to know who else was considered for the prize as im sure there are people who are more deserving of the recognition, much like when Al Gore was awarded the prize 2 years ago over people who risked their lives for the greater good.

Gekko, thats a weak argument, because he may be an excellent speaker but he has yet to do anything to actually EARN any distinction, especially with problems yet to be solved (the economy, N. Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, ect).

The winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, anti-communist Polish leader Lech Walesa, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal as expressing surprise.

\"Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast -- he hasn't had the time to do anything yet,\" the paper's Web site quoted Walesa as saying.

All im gonna say is he is a smart man and he's doing better than Bush ever did. HE'S TRYING.

I have a feeling he will be assassinated though. Every president that has tried economic reform has been killed.

Can you guys help me in my lobby for the Nobel peace prize next year? I promise world peace, perfect health (without the need for health care) and puppies for everyone.

Also, I was waiting for when I'd see the first Antichrist link to Obama on the board. Somehow I imagine the Antichrist being much more insidious than this... Hitler-ish on a global scale- Obama's not even close.

snoopy wrote:Also, I was waiting for when I'd see the first Antichrist link to Obama on the board. Somehow I imagine the Antichrist being much more insidious than this... Hitler-ish on a global scale- Obama's not even close.

While I am not even close to saying Obama is the Antichrist. the first 1000 days of his reign will be world bliss, Cats sleeping with Dogs, Israeli's and Muslims having dinner together and inter-marrying, Democrats and Republicans agreeing on the issues. then he goes all Hitler-Stalin-Polpot-esque

S13driftAZ wrote:All im gonna say is he is a smart man and he's doing better than Bush ever did. HE'S TRYING....

I realize "he's trying" but what exactly is he trying to do? He promised a lot of things that he absolutely could have delivered and hasn't even delivered on those promises!
*Gitmo closed...no.
*All legislation he signs will be posted for all to read on the internet for 72 hours before he signs it...no.

So there is trying...and there is trying.
I 'tried' to be a better guitar player than Eddie Van Halen...so where are my gold records, my groupies, my millions and my Grammy?

You got me.

I can feel how proud of the american people are for their president winning a nobel prize.

Grendel wrote:I can feel how proud of the american people are for their president winning a nobel prize.

Winning and earning are not the same thing. while I'm happy for the Guy that wins the Lottery, it was Michael Phelps earning 8 golds that filled me with pride

Gekko71 wrote:... - you may need to live outside of the US for a time to fully apppreciate the considerable depth of this feeling.

You may need to be a resident of Illinois to appreciate the depth of incredulity some of us have to other's perceptions of Mr. Obama's accomplishments.

.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee bases its assessment on nominations sent in before 3 February. So what did he really do? In office for 2 weeks or less and gets it. What a freaking joke.

Premature awardification maybe, or just flipping the bird to Bushie.

Obama was chosen not for substantive accomplishments, but for inspiring \"hope\" at the start of his term.

LOL dumb reason IMHO

CUDA wrote:

Grendel wrote:I can feel how proud of the american people are for their president winning a nobel prize.

Winning and earning are not the same thing.

The nobel committee decides who deserves it. Last time I checked nobody here is on that committee.

Bet51987 wrote:As an american, I'm proud too and McCain's star got a little brighter today.

There, someone w/ the right attitude at last !

Edit: you know, the inability to understand why he got got it really speaks loudly for itself.

Top Wop wrote:Im sorry, but to me this makes the Nobel Peace Prize meaningless. Id like to know who else was considered for the prize as im sure there are people who are more deserving of the recognition, much like when Al Gore was awarded the prize 2 years ago over people who risked their lives for the greater good.

The following were considered key contenders. Does anyone here think Obama was more deserving than them? Even you Bee, who are big on womens rights, do you think Obama was more deserving than the two women
listed here?

Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai

Chinese dissident Hu Jia

Afghan women's rights activist Simi Samar

French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt

Grendel wrote: Edit: you know, the inability to understand why he got got it really speaks loudly for itself.

Why don't you enlighten us then and explain to all of us here why he DESERVED it based upon the standards set by Alfred Nobel

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should 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"

because based upon his requirements Mr. Obama is not qualified to win the award

I went to work today thinking….

“Even the liberals are going to feel a bit queasy, on this one”

But no…

Like I said before…Cult Of Personality.

Some intellectual honesty by some would be refreshing…

CUDA wrote:

Grendel wrote: Edit: you know, the inability to understand why he got got it really speaks loudly for itself.

Why don't you enlighten us then and explain to all of us here why he DESERVED it based upon the standards set by Alfred Nobel

Well, he kinda looks like Gandhi…

Bet51987 wrote:...
As an american, I'm proud too and McCain's star got a little brighter today.

Bee

As a football fan I'm embarrassed if my team is awarded a touchdown on a bad call by a referee.

And unlike McCain I don't try to score points by pretending to be appreciative of my President receiving an honor he doesn't deserve. I consider it more of an insult than an honor because for me the Nobel Prize was for people like Sister Theresa or Gandhi or Dr. King etc. not slick talking politicians who can talk a good game if they are allowed some prep time and a teleprompter but have yet to fight their way out of a paper bag!

As a citizen of the world I don't appreciate the committee degrading the value of it's mission by taking the legacy of the Prize and using it for political commentary or bribery.

It's funny Bee, because you don't always give McCain credit for his bull shiz answers but then again, I guess it isn't McCains star you are really trying to polish.

I hope my comments didn't mislead regarding my feelings about it.

I do think it is an honor for Obama to get that ... I just don't think his work warranted that honor ... at least not yet.

I think there were others that deserved that honor at this time, more than Obama. If Obama does deserve it, that will only be known after more time has transpired. Meanwhile, the honor should have been given to someone else. It's not like there should be any kind of a rush to award someone with the honor.

Spidey wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Grendel wrote: Edit: you know, the inability to understand why he got got it really speaks loudly for itself.

Why don't you enlighten us then and explain to all of us here why he DESERVED it based upon the standards set by Alfred Nobel

Well, he kinda looks like Gandhi…

If he looked like Gandhi them he should of lost:

"Leading the list is everyone's favorite non-winner, Mohandas Gandhi, who embodied the ironic idea of non-violence as the most powerful weapon to effect social change. And Gandhi didn't win despite being nominated thrice."

So you see chitlins, those who most deserve the award are shunted aside for political reasons...damne the qualifications, full vote ahead.

So its been suggested that he should have turned it down…now that would have earned him my respect. (back, maybe)

Well he is donating the prize money to charity. Still undeserving of the prize. I don't care how you spin it.

The White House will want to be very careful as to the organizations to which the prize money will be donated to ensure that Obama's choices don't give his opponents political fodder; that'll take a little while.

I expect the democrats on The Hill will be shoving as much crap as they can into any legislation they can pass while we're all barking up this tree.
Don't count on the mainstream media to help in that regard either.

Here's the contents of the nutshell:

Nobel Committee = euroweenie political hacks. Committee gives Obama useless award that used to mean something.
End of story.

Now get back to watching the real criminals please!

Top Wop wrote:...he may be an excellent speaker but he has yet to do anything to actually EARN any distinction, especially with problems yet to be solved (the economy, N. Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, ect).

Very true. Please note I was referring most of my comments to the SENTIMENT behind the decision. Sentimental decisions are not always the most rational but that doesn't mean they are totally devoid of merit.

I appreicate the difference between rhetoric and actual acchievement. I also appreciate that even rhetoric can have a beneficial outcome when offered in the right environment, at the right time, by the right person and for the right resasons. Obama's dialogue with other nations has been far more reflective of international mood than Bush's was.

Words themselves are not actions and concillatory words will always be eclipsed by concillatory actions. But at the same time, concillatory actions cannot happen in an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility - and it's Obama's words that have helped to lessen that hostile atmosphere interntaionally.

The effect of Obama's dialogue with the international community still have an effect over others that should not be under (or over) estimated.

dissent wrote: You may need to be a resident of Illinois to appreciate the depth of incredulity some of us have to other's perceptions of Mr. Obama's accomplishments.

Well said - can't argue with that.

As I said at the opening: I can't comment on Obama's US domestic agenda - I don't doubt however that from a domestic viewpoint your feelings are well justified.

Gekko71 wrote:.. and it's Obama's words that have helped to lessen that hostile atmosphere interntaionally...

I think he'd be happy to accept that award as well but is there any evidence of reduced hostilities?

As far as I can see we still have troops in every place we did under Bush and every place there was violence under Bush still has violence.

Iran is still thumbing it's nose at the world while it builds it's illegal nuke weapons, Russia is still unhappy with our missile program even after Obama gutted it, N. Korea is still trying to get someone to notice their saber rattling and trying to sell weapons to anyone with a grudge against the west, Chavez is trying to buy Russian air power and naval power, al Queda is certainly no less a threat thanks to anything Obama has done, Afghanistan is building to a crescendo once again, Somalia is still hosting the genocide games, Hamas and Hezbollah are still telling the world the American President is a killer while they launch missiles and suicide bomber attacks on their neighbors, Iraq is a war on hold, poised for collapse the day after Obama pulls out, the race card is now worth double points here at home and the congress has completely lost touch with reality, China and others are waging economic hostilities towards the west and Dancing with the Stars has been renewed for another season!

I'm sorry but I think you are buying into the hype, it takes more than campaign slogans to change the world.

Will Robinson wrote: Nobel Committee = euroweenie political hacks. Committee gives Obama useless award that used to mean something.
End of story.

oh sure, like bush ever did anything to deserve one either.

I think this serves his critics much more then it serves him.

Will Robinson wrote:

Gekko71 wrote:.. and it's Obama's words that have helped to lessen that hostile atmosphere interntaionally...

I think he'd be happy to accept that award as well but is there any evidence of reduced hostilities?

As far as I can see we still have troops in every place we did under Bush and every place there was violence under Bush still has violence.

Iran is still thumbing it's nose at the world while it builds it's illegal nuke weapons, Russia is still unhappy with our missile program even after Obama gutted it, N. Korea is still trying to get someone to notice their saber rattling and trying to sell weapons to anyone with a grudge against the west, Chavez is trying to buy Russian air power and naval power, al Queda is certainly no less a threat thanks to anything Obama has done, Afghanistan is building to a crescendo once again, Somalia is still hosting the genocide games, Hamas and Hezbollah are still telling the world the American President is a killer while they launch missiles and suicide bomber attacks on their neighbors, Iraq is a war on hold, poised for collapse the day after Obama pulls out, the race card is now worth double points here at home and the congress has completely lost touch with reality, China and others are waging economic hostilities towards the west and Dancing with the Stars has been renewed for another season!

I'm sorry but I think you are buying into the hype, it takes more than campaign slogans to change the world.

Most of the hostilities you mention Will are damn near intractable.

Somalian inter-tribal hostilities date back over a century. The Hamas and Hezbollah conflict over the disputed territories has its roots in not just the 6-day war and the creation of the Isralei state, but is also partially an extension of an ancient indoctrinated conflict between peoples. No single leader - be they Democrat, Republican, North American, British, Isralei, Palestinian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or otherwise has been able to suffocate *that* particular hegemonistic horror.

But with respect, all the above is irellevant to my previous assertion. I did not say that Obama has lessened or eliminated hostilities. I suggested that he had palpably lessened a hostile atmosphere between nations that made negotiation increasingly difficult if not impossible.

No peace process in history to my knowledge has ever been implemented (let alone successfully completed) without first establishing a dialogue between warring parties - something Obama has shown far greater interest in when compared to his predecessor).

Gekko71 wrote:





No peace process in history to my knowledge has ever been implemented (let alone successfully completed) without first establishing a dialogue between warring parties - something Obama has shown far greater interest in when compared to his predecessor).

Neville Chamberlain tried that approach and failed. What finally did work was beating the Germans so bad they surrendered.
The Japanese didn't even try to negotiate with us prior to Pearl Harbor (Cuda can clarify this). What brought about a lasting peace though was beating them so badly they too surrendered.
For decades the Us and Russia fought a cold war and negotiated endlessly. Russia finally surrendered when we broke Russia's economic back.
For years we and the world negotiated with Saddam Hussein. He finally surrendered when we pulled him out of a rat hole.

We lost in Vietnam because we tried to negotiate our way out out.
There is a North Korea because a settlement was negotiated to end the Korean war.
Starting to see a pattern here?

Gekko71 wrote:...I did not say that Obama has lessened or eliminated hostilities. I suggested that he had palpably lessened a hostile atmosphere between nations that made negotiation increasingly difficult if not impossible.

How do you measure the 'atmosphere' being less hostile? You can site Obama's willingness to have dialog but that doesn't automatically translate to results. Clinton sent Albright to talk to the N Koreans and people lauded his dialog to be superior to Bush Sr. so the N.Koreans talked about not building nukes ....while they built them anyway and laughed at us about it later!
In the examples of continuing hostilities I listed I can't see any change in the dialog coming back from those parties since Obama took over the microphone and just look at the Russians, they got Obama to back down so do they lessen the rhetoric? No, now they see weakness and make more demands!

No peace process in history to my knowledge has ever been implemented (let alone successfully completed) without first establishing a dialogue between warring parties - something Obama has shown far greater interest in when compared to his predecessor).

No peace agreement has ever been established without one party surrendering to another first! If it has it has been a follow up agreement between allies from a previous war like NATO etc.
So you can highlight the dialog part of the process if you want to but it isn't necessarily the cause of the peace, more likely simply a formality to document the results of the hostility.

So you are telling me he is more interested in the talking part of the process. That is no surprise to me. He's proven to be full of that. And now he gets a once prestigious award for being good at talking about the desire to talk about it....

Make no mistake I'd love for him to earn the award for actually getting things done and it isn't his fault for receiving it prematurely but it sure does bring to the forefront his record so far. My guess is his ego is too large to wish they never gave it to him.
You've heard the old saying - live by the sword, die by the sword? Well this is a case of live by the hype, die by the hype.

Will Robinson wrote:it isn't his fault for receiving it prematurely

I agree 100% the general tone of the conversation would make it seem like this was an anti Obama thing. its not, this is an issue with the Nobel prize committee and their choice. it is clear that based solely on DEEDS alone Obama does not merit this award, and giving it to him based on Political rhetoric is short sighted and an insult to the truly worthy people that have dedicated their lives to Peace. people like

1993 - Nelson Mandela
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1979 - Mother Teresa
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1964 - Martin Luther King Jr.
1953 - George C. Marshall
1945 - Cordell Hull


these are people that dedicated a good portion of their lives to establishing peace, not just talking about it.
I was brought up to understand that "Talk is cheap", and "Actions speak louder than words". Maybe someday Obama will merit this award, but not today