scott
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by scott on Oct 9, 2009 10:25:39 GMT -5
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68 
|
Post by cm on Oct 9, 2009 11:51:30 GMT -5
How can you win the Nobel Peace Prize if you're actually increasing troops levels in one of your wars while maintaining them in another?
|
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 9, 2009 12:03:44 GMT -5
You're forgetting one thing, USA! USA! USA!
|
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Oct 9, 2009 12:33:35 GMT -5
As if the teabaggers weren't incensed enough, now he's a certified European elitist. Well, he did help bailout Deutsche Bank.
At this point, he's being rewarded too much, too soon. I don't think he'll remember any of his promises. I guess if the warmongers in U.S. are truly upset about it, then it must in form be well deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 9, 2009 12:46:50 GMT -5
He should have humbly and graciously declined it, saying that he has much more work to do before being bestowed with such an honor.
|
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Oct 9, 2009 13:08:59 GMT -5
^Only two people have refused a Nobel Peace prize. One was a philosopher going on principle (Sartre). The other was a North Vietnamese diplomat. It was also awarded to Henry Kissinger, then U.S. National Security Advisor during the Vietnam War, for their efforts during the Paris Peace Accords--but that smug Henry Kissinger accepted his anyway.
In other words, the only two people to have refused the prize on principle were Communists. You don't want Obama to look like a Communist do you? He is far from it. And besides, Americans are so used to seeing him as a Hitler.
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Oct 9, 2009 13:19:35 GMT -5
Hey, it looks like not starting a war in the first 10 months of your term is now sufficient to win the Peace Prize. Look at his accomplishments so far:
-not invading any new countries in the first 10 months of his term
-de-escalating the missile shield situation with Russia
-shrinking the boondogle defense budget
-beginning to broker meetings with Iran and de-escalating the rhetoric
-keeping pressure on the Israelis and getting Bibi to back a two-state solution
-averting Great Depression II (so far, though for my money Bernanke should get the economics prize for that)
-making nice speeches about race relations and West-Islamic relations
and most importantly:
-de-escalating the feud between Officer Crowley and Henry Louis Gates Jr. through the famous beer summit.
OK, a little weak, but since they gave the prize to Kissinger pretty much anyone who doesn't carpet bomb a country should "deserve" the prize.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Oct 9, 2009 13:37:28 GMT -5
Peace Nobel prize winners are afflicted by a premature death sentence. Just look at what happened to previous ones...
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Oct 9, 2009 16:38:44 GMT -5
Hey, it looks like not starting a war in the first 10 months of your term is now sufficient to win the Peace Prize. Look at his accomplishments so far: -not invading any new countries in the first 10 months of his term -de-escalating the missile shield situation with Russia -shrinking the boondogle defense budget -beginning to broker meetings with Iran and de-escalating the rhetoric -keeping pressure on the Israelis and getting Bibi to back a two-state solution -averting Great Depression II (so far, though for my money Bernanke should get the economics prize for that) -making nice speeches about race relations and West-Islamic relations and most importantly: -de-escalating the feud between Officer Crowley and Henry Louis Gates Jr. through the famous beer summit. OK, a little weak, but since they gave the prize to Kissinger pretty much anyone who doesn't carpet bomb a country should "deserve" the prize. Kissenger made peace with China. Such a deal probably saved tens of millions of lives in regards to opening up China to a sufficient economic system, and ending that front of the cold war. Obama hasn't made peace with any significant nations. Relations with Iran and NKorea are still as tense as ever. |
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Oct 9, 2009 17:44:00 GMT -5
Kissenger made peace with China. Such a deal probably saved tens of millions of lives in regards to opening up China to a sufficient economic system, and ending that front of the cold war. Obama hasn't made peace with any significant nations. Relations with Iran and NKorea are still as tense as ever. The Nobel Prize was awarded to Kissinger before he became Secretary of State. And the reduction in trade restrictions with China was Nixon's initiative--not Kissinger's. The Secretary State doesn't decide his own foreign policy and Nixon silenced critics within his own cabinet. It was clearly Nixon's decision to make. Kissinger is a Neocon. He'll march into Iran and North Korea the same way the U.S. marched in Vietnam. Even a Nobel Peace prize can't change bad habits. Obama might not make the peace, but he certainly won't start needless wars. Sadly, that's the modern acceptable criteria for world leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Oct 9, 2009 22:54:32 GMT -5
^Kissenger made peace with China.
Kissinger won for pulling the US out of Vietnam. The US wasn't really at war with China so it's not clear that any "peace" was created there (in any case Nixon probably deserves more credit as Palaver said). Also, his list of sins is a lot longer than Cambodia. He can't even travel in South America for fear of being arrested and tried for his role in supporting military juntas throughout the region, the overthrow of Allende in 1973, etc.
I don't know what the "right" criteria is to use, but if Yasser Arafat (long-time supporter of terrorism and suicide bombing against civillians) and Menachem Begin (oversaw the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the Shabra and Satila massacre, and continued illegal-under-international-law expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories) can win, along with Kissinger, I would say that Obama can safely be considered at worst the fourth most controversial pick for the Peace Prize.
I agree it's premature, but looking at the history of the Peace Prize, good intentions and symbolism count as much as accomplishments - after all, we haven't exactly abolished nuclear weapons, done anything to tackle climate change, reconciled North and South Korea, abolished land mines (or even gotten the US to sign on), or achieved anything through non-violent struggle in Tibet and Burma.
With respect to Kanye,
"President Obama, I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish but Mohandas Gandhi was the most-deserving Nobel Peace Prize candidate of all time. OF ALL TIME!"
|
|
|
|
Post by rob on Oct 12, 2009 10:16:37 GMT -5
Positively shocking. Even Bill Clinton would have been a far better choice. Or how about Boutros Boutros Boutros? Or the Sri Lankan Government? It's the only one to have successfully defeated terrorists, notably by kicking norwegian negotiators out of the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Oct 12, 2009 13:11:32 GMT -5
Heard on a French satirical tv show: les Guignols de l'info. It's a bit hard to be faithful when translating black humour, anyways:
"Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace prize. Bush did. With 2 wars his administration left much more people in peace, indeed they rest in peace !"
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Oct 13, 2009 11:13:40 GMT -5
Clinton will probably get the prize later in his life like Carter did, as a snub to some future Republican President who starts a couple of wars in the middle-east. He also had the ill fortune of coming into office after George Sr., who was a fairly reasonable person, and not Dubya, the least popular US President internationally of all-time. Of all-time.
And big-up to Oliver Williamson for bringing another Bank of Sweden prize to Berkeley. (I won't call it a Nobel, though it means the same thing where it counts - in the $$$ department). I've never seen the man (because I don't go to the seminar that bears his name) but there's no doubt he's done some great work and deserved it more than the likes of Fama.
|
|
