President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Post Reply New Topic

[*. The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:
Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not. ]

This thread is about whether he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize NOW, not about whether he's better than Bush. If there's any bashing, it's towards the Nobel Prize committee.

His short time in office is exactly why there's no reason he deserved it. May be after his full term, even if he can't deliver all his promises he would still deserve some praise IF he have tried hard enough. But we will discuss it then, giving him the Nobel Prize now is definitely a joke.

if you actually comprehended my post, you would understand that i quoted xalepax because i AGREED that obama has not been in office long enough to be getting a nobel peace prize. what got me pissed is people saying insulting things. you may not agree with his winning the nobel prize or think that its untimely, but in no way is it a joke.

Just because he might prove his worth for the prize is not an excuse to give it to him now. It IS a joke to give a man who has done nothing a prize that was supposed to be the greatest honor of all.

Besides, what "insulting things" in this thread are not facts? Even if he wasn't given the prize, what's the problem with people pointing out promises that he has yet to fulfill?

So, you think he had to be president to win? What about his campaign? He ran it with dignity and grace, and successfully, as well. You think having a black man win the higest office in the land with the US's history on race is some easy piece of cake?

Your margins are too slim, try opening your understanding that people are not confined to your narrow way of thinking. He didn't have to be president to win, you know.

I think he had to do something.

His campaign was nice, sure. He made a lot of promises, he's a great talker, it was historical, etc. He hadn't had the time to actually live up to those promises when the committee decided to award him; the only thing he had done was talk and travel. You forget that Obama did not elect himself. He did have a good campaign, but if the coutry was still as balanty racist as you seem to believe, he wouldn't have won.

Something all swedes has known for centuries has been confirmed: [edited by sinsboldly]

Conduct not allowed on WrongPlanet.net
*anything that purposely causes conflict with other members.

Running a successful campaign, regardless of grace or dignity involved does not spontaneously qualify one for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Although some racial prejudices remain in the USA, this added to the former still does not qualify one for the prize.
Nor does difficulty in coming to power under such circumstances.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee decides who the candidates are, and who wins the award. It may be worth mentioning here that the precise details of the selection process are kept secret for 50 years after each candidate is chosen.

Reasonable assumptions for why Obama won the award include:
-Secured $5 billion in aid commitments with help from Japan "to bolster the country's economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" in Pakistan.
-Proclaiming "American is not at war with Islam" in Turkey.

And some against:
-Maintaining trade embargos on Cuba.
-Continuing military occupation in both Afganistan and Iraq.
-Authorising drone bombing attacks on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'll accept any real additions to these lists that relate to peace.

CloudWalker's way of thinking appears to be questioning giving the prize to Obama based on his decisions he made and the promises he made, and whether he kept them.

Thanks Asmodeus, that's about what I meant. I also want to add that none of his promises that has the slightest bearings on peace has been fulfilled yet.


If "strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" is really the reason for the Peace Prize, then they should give it to Bush. It is his retiring from office that achieved such effect. Or they should give it to the American people who had the foresight to vote against Bush in his two elections. In my view, whoever won the last election, as long as his policies aren't a copy of Bush's will achieve that.

Margins of what? Narrow way of thinking? It is called Nobel Peace Prize, not Nobel Campaign Prize, or Nobel President Prize. I don't think he had to be president to win but I do think he had to contribute to World Peace in order to win.

Last edited by CloudWalker on 13 Oct 2009, 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

well i felt like something should be said in light of all the negativity. there's bound to be people who disagree with anybody in history who have won a Nobel Peace Prize, but i seriously doubt the poster of this thread started it with the intention that it would cause so much controversy. not one person said anything positive about why he might not be such a terrible choice to be awarded this prize. i just have no idea why the mention of Obama draws so much hostility and negativity.

If there is any controversy or negativity they should be directed at the Norwegian Parliament and the the
Peace Prize selection committee. President Obama in my mind is a very large unknown,...he has yet to do anything that could be called positive or for that matter negative either in this country or upon the world stage.
Remember he was selected for this Prize back in February less than two weeks of assuming office.
Any accomplishments of his for world peace or "The Betterment of The Human Condition" do not seem significant to merit such an award, not this early in his administration. But that is my opinion.

Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician and member of the five-person Nobel committee that chose this year’s winner, said the choice of President Barack Obama was primarily related his stance on nuclear disarmament.

from the Wall Street Journal
Paul Sonne reports on the Nobel Peace Prize.
Associated Press
President Barack Obama chairing a meeting of the United Nations Security Council at the United Nations headquarters. “There is a criticism about the war in Afghanistan, and I understand that,” said Valle in a telephone interview. “But this was primarily an award on his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament – and his dialogue. Of course there will be criticism, because he hasn’t achieved his goals yet. It will take time, but this is a support.”

Valle said the committee last met on Oct. 5, and that the decision to choose Obama was unanimous, especially after Sept. 24, when Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to chair a U.N. Security Council summit-level meeting. At that meeting, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ahead of negotiations on the issue with Iran in Geneva.

“That strengthened his name, so to say,” Valle said. “It’s a challenge to him, of course, to continue going on in this way.”

She said she hoped the award would help Obama get the U.S. to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and aid him in progressing on climate change in Copenhagen. She added that she supported Obama’s recent decision to drop U.S. plans for a missile-defense shield in Central Europe. “He is giving hope to people who believe in dialogue instead of threats of using military tools,” she said.

Earlier, at the Nobel press conference, committee chairman Thorbjørn Jagland defended the choice of Obama.

“If you look at the history of the Nobel Peace prize, we have, on many occasions, tried to enhance what many personalities are trying to do,” he said. “For instance, when Willy Brandt got the prize back in the 1970s. He launched Ostpolitik in Europe, which was so important to what happened in Europe many years later. For instance, giving the prize to Mikhail Gorbachev, who changed the world completely. And now to President Obama, who is contributing to improve the international climate.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/0 ... the-prize/

Please don't get confused. It's "Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize now" that draws negativity.


In response to the new stand of the Nobel Peace committee:
1. That still doesn't answer why he was nominated in the first place.
2. It also begs the question why only 2 sentences in the original announcement mentioned nuclear?
That is 35 out of 261 words, just 13.4%. If it was really the main reason all along, why does it take so long for them to clarify. I can't speak for the others, but for me if that was what they said in the first place instead of that "extraordinary efforts..." crap, my distaste for it would be much milder. With the way things unfolded though, they had lost all credibility in my mind.


And 2 things I learn from this episode:
1. People will go berserk when you criticize their idol. That's not different on WP.
2. Apparently it's a sin to be dissatisfied with Obama. It is downright heresy to mention it.
Thou who defied shalt be branded "neocons".
Yes, I saw your deleted post, sinsboldly.
I like the irony that you edited Antonius' post for calling the Norwegians mad; and you almost edited my post for saying it is stupid to "call people with different opinions stupid". Yet you found it perfectly acceptable for those with similar view as yours to call others names; and finally you yourself go ahead and called people neocons.
I suppose you have a name to call me too for thinking that is double standard.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been like this for ever. It is not a new precedent this sort of appointment.

There is a lot of hype surrounds the prize, when most people don't know who have received it beside Mandela. Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat have received. It is clear it is not about those who have made peace but to motivate people who they think could make peace.

As far as I'm concerned this is not Obama’s fault, he has done well to brush it off.

There is no need to get knickers in a twist over this.

Yes, worshipping Republicans is only limited to Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan (Ronaldus Magnus)



so?



I got a complaint from a Norwegian that it unfairly attacked Norwegians. If someone PMs me thinking they are a neocon and wants me to edit my post about neocons (which I self edited, thank you very much) I would do so.

I am still chuckling about 'almost' editing your post.

Merle

Last edited by sinsboldly on 14 Oct 2009, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Again, follow the history of the prize not the hype. It is not the greatest honor of all. It is just one of the political prizes you can be awarded.

It doesn’t make one iota of difference that Mandela got the prize. People know the man, beyond the prize.

Nobel was a scientist, not the greatest scientist of all time but a good one although quite short sighed that his discovery wouldn’t just be used for good.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee has a history of attempting to inspire world Peace. Nobel Peace Police I failed history so feel free to ignore this line of thinking, but it is the only one that makes since to me. Granted, there are many theories that make perfect scents, but that is politics from what I understand. Much like the campaign promise to start pulling the US troops out of Iraq, he has made good on that promise true, though he forgot to mention that he would be putting them in Afghanistan instead, minor oversight I am sure.