President Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

[Seldon2639]

Oh, so, when did you make a significant step in reversing a leading world power's perceived hostility toward the followers of a major world religion? Or allowing more disclosure in the Freedom of Information Act? Or closing a detainee center that violated the Geneva Convention?

Failing that, I would love to hear all about your amazing advancements in saving the world from Cheetoh proliferation by selflessly ingesting them, despite the known hazards of cheese dust.

Hmm... (1) what significant step did he take toward actually reversing the perception? We're still in two wars, many (if not most) people in the Middle East still hate us (and western civilization), and since when is saying "oh, no, guys, we totally don't hate you" actually considered progress? (2) Uh... if you say so, but there's still a whole lot of information about our torture of detainees which is still unavailable to the public record. In point of fact, Obama issued a directive specifically stating that they not be released despite promising to do so in his campaign. What information has he "released"? His dates with Michelle? (3) you mean the one he promised to close in the first month of his presidency, which is still open, and which will likely be open for a long while according to his own Department of Defense.

Hmm... Yeah, I haven't done any of that stuff. Damn, looks like I'm not as good a candidate. Then again, I'm also not fighting two wars in the middle east and contemplating a huge troop increase in one of them. I also haven't reneged on a deal to help protect Western Europe, nor have I allowed Tehran to proliferate nuclear missiles while promising to strike the "heart of Israel". How about we call it a wash?

Nice little snark about cheetos, but I actually prefer Snickers.

But, here's what you don't get: impact should be measured in capacity, not in absolute terms. He can single-handedly end two wars, provide hugely greater foreign aid, curb global warming (through the executive agencies which work under his aegis), and basically change the entire outlook of the world. And yet he gets credit for saying "we don't hate Arabs", giving less information than he promised, and moving in baby steps to close Guantanamo. I want that job, apparently it's pretty easy to do "great" things in it.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Should've given it to Oprah...

 

[AceDiamond]

Oh, so, when did you make a significant step in reversing a leading world power's perceived hostility toward the followers of a major world religion? Or allowing more disclosure in the Freedom of Information Act? Or closing a detainee center that violated the Geneva Convention?

Failing that, I would love to hear all about your amazing advancements in saving the world from Cheetoh proliferation by selflessly ingesting them, despite the known hazards of cheese dust.

Hmm... (1) what significant step did he take toward actually reversing the perception? We're still in two wars, many (if not most) people in the Middle East still hate us (and western civilization), and since when is saying "oh, no, guys, we totally don't hate you" actually considered progress? (2) Uh... if you say so, but there's still a whole lot of information about our torture of detainees which is still unavailable to the public record. In point of fact, Obama issued a directive specifically stating that they not be released despite promising to do so in his campaign. What information has he "released"? His dates with Michelle? (3) you mean the one he promised to close in the first month of his presidency, which is still open, and which will likely be open for a long while according to his own Department of Defense.

Hmm... Yeah, I haven't done any of that stuff. Damn, looks like I'm not as good a candidate. Then again, I'm also not fighting two wars in the middle east and contemplating a huge troop increase in one of them. I also haven't reneged on a deal to help protect Western Europe, nor have I allowed Tehran to proliferate nuclear missiles while promising to strike the "heart of Israel". How about we call it a wash?

Nice little snark about cheetos, but I actually prefer Snickers.

But, here's what you don't get: impact should be measured in capacity, not in absolute terms. He can single-handedly end two wars, provide hugely greater foreign aid, curb global warming (through the executive agencies which work under his aegis), and basically change the entire outlook of the world. And yet he gets credit for saying "we don't hate Arabs", giving less information than he promised, and moving in baby steps to close Guantanamo. I want that job, apparently it's pretty easy to do "great" things in it.

So basically you're saying because our current president is not constantly cutting Congress out of things, denying people their rights, ignoring terrorist threats until they happen, or lying his way into starting wars with countries (things which President Bush did, in case I wasn't blunt enough), he's doing a bad job.

I'm sorry but that is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can't just snap your fingers and expect things to happen instantly. Everything takes time, especially in terms of the geopolitical spectrum. And if you can't understand that well then I suggest you lock your doors and windows and never leave the house again because you're not capable of relating to reality at all.

 

[JWAN]

I have to believe this was just a brilliant plan to give Obama's administration some steam after being Obama started to fall in the popularity polls, of course he fell in the polls because he didn't do anything, so I suppose now everyone who underachieves can get a major award. Christ, at least Bush did stuff, he didn't do good stuff but he got shit done. (Yes I am a dem, and I really hate typing that bit of praise for Bush.)

READ
THE
NOBEL
PEACE
PRIZE
SITE

Europeans awarded it to Obama. It has nothing to do with his freaking poll numbers or anything.

Man, the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!!!

Guess what, he hasn't done anything. Every President since Regan has done the exact same PR stunts, that's right *-STUNTS-*, that's all they are. Except Regan ended the cold war in the process.
Wait till Obama actually DOES something before you (not you personally, that's for the Nobel prize committee ) start kissing his ass.
Talk is cheap
Lead by example
by the way you know what was more important than Iranian protesters getting slaughtered this summer?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+kills+fly&search_type=&aq=0&oq=obama+kil
^ I have lost faith in the media.

 

[AceDiamond]

I have to believe this was just a brilliant plan to give Obama's administration some steam after being Obama started to fall in the popularity polls, of course he fell in the polls because he didn't do anything, so I suppose now everyone who underachieves can get a major award. Christ, at least Bush did stuff, he didn't do good stuff but he got shit done. (Yes I am a dem, and I really hate typing that bit of praise for Bush.)

READ
THE
NOBEL
PEACE
PRIZE
SITE

Europeans awarded it to Obama. It has nothing to do with his freaking poll numbers or anything.

Man, the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!!!

Guess what, he hasn't done anything. Every President since Regan has done the exact same PR stunts, that's right *-STUNTS-*, that's all they are. Except Regan ended the cold war in the process.
Wait till Obama actually DOES something before you (not you personally, that's for the Nobel prize committee ) start kissing his ass.
Talk is cheap
Lead by example

The nobel peace prize is awarded for making an effort, not for a tangible result (like say a blasted out crater of a country which is all our last president has to be remembered by, oh and crippling debt). And if you'd read the site, or the CNN news story, you'd have realized that and not made an ass of yourself. And yes, talk is cheap, but in your case I think you might want a refund.

 

[JWAN]

The Nobel Peace Prize has a historical precedent of promoting progressive ideals. Even as far back as Teddy Roosevelt we were seeing the committee nominate strong progressive ideologues. Obama is just another in a string of progressive American presidents to be given the award to give global justification to his policies.

Yea, but none of them have gone anywhere yet. Why don't they just wait until his policies work (or fail) to see if he deserves something?
hes been in office 9 months

 

[Zetona]

Maybe for getting an agreement to cut the number of nuclear weapons?

In terms of global peace that's quite a big one, especially since G.W.Bush's pushing for the "missile defence system" in Poland was escalating Russia to begin practising nuclear launches...

If it's not for that then I dunno why he's been given it, but then I haven't really been up-to-date with what he's been doing lately (firstly I'm in Britain and secondly at uni with no TV so haven't been watching the nightly BBC news).

This is exactly it. He's been leading the fight against nuclear weapons and considering this involves getting rid of his own countries armaments, the largest stockpile in the world, this is a pretty big step for world peace. Hence I can fully understand and support the decision to award it to him.

A liberal commentator could perhaps see the mainstream media's failure to report Obama's nuclear policy as an example of conservative bias. So many people are unaware of how much he's done, including myself. I'm not sure myself if he deserves it. Still, changing the global political climate solely with your presence is pretty cool.

 

[sandrock42]

Direct Link [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm]

US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, selected from a field of 205 nominees.

Now, forgive my ignorance and I'm hoping not to get flamed for this. But what for?

I don't know nearly enough of his political or diplomatic history to comment and I know they don't give out Nobel Prizes for collecting enough cereal box tops.

These days, any Nobel prize is a joke unless its in a science or mathematical category.

Most people stopped giving a shit about it about a decade ago. I mean seriously, Al Gore won a Nobel prize. Yeah...

I wish I could go on national television and preach with my fingers crossed behind my back of all the things I intend to do to make the world better, and then get a Nobel prize for it. I would then sell the thing as scrap metal.

Could any of us relate barack obama to any of the previous nobel peace prize winners, except for al gore and jimmy carter but they really didn't do anything either except talk about something they want to do.

 

[JWAN]

I have to believe this was just a brilliant plan to give Obama's administration some steam after being Obama started to fall in the popularity polls, of course he fell in the polls because he didn't do anything, so I suppose now everyone who underachieves can get a major award. Christ, at least Bush did stuff, he didn't do good stuff but he got shit done. (Yes I am a dem, and I really hate typing that bit of praise for Bush.)

READ
THE
NOBEL
PEACE
PRIZE
SITE

Europeans awarded it to Obama. It has nothing to do with his freaking poll numbers or anything.

Man, the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!!!

Guess what, he hasn't done anything. Every President since Regan has done the exact same PR stunts, that's right *-STUNTS-*, that's all they are. Except Regan ended the cold war in the process.
Wait till Obama actually DOES something before you (not you personally, that's for the Nobel prize committee ) start kissing his ass.
Talk is cheap
Lead by example

The nobel peace prize is awarded for making an effort, not for a tangible result (like say a blasted out crater of a country which is all our last president has to be remembered by, oh and crippling debt). And if you'd read the site, or the CNN news story, you'd have realized that and not made an ass of yourself. And yes, talk is cheap, but in your case I think you might want a refund.

Good edit, but Obama has done exactly what every president of the US has done since Regan, why don't they get Nobel prizes?
Ive read the article, did you read my post?

 

[Cliff_m85]

I have to believe this was just a brilliant plan to give Obama's administration some steam after being Obama started to fall in the popularity polls, of course he fell in the polls because he didn't do anything, so I suppose now everyone who underachieves can get a major award. Christ, at least Bush did stuff, he didn't do good stuff but he got shit done. (Yes I am a dem, and I really hate typing that bit of praise for Bush.)

READ
THE
NOBEL
PEACE
PRIZE
SITE

Europeans awarded it to Obama. It has nothing to do with his freaking poll numbers or anything.

Man, the conspiracy theorists are out in force today!!!

Guess what, he hasn't done anything. Every President since Regan has done the exact same PR stunts, that's right *-STUNTS-*, that's all they are. Except Regan ended the cold war in the process.
Wait till Obama actually DOES something before you (not you personally, that's for the Nobel prize committee ) start kissing his ass.
Talk is cheap
Lead by example

The nobel peace prize is awarded for making an effort, not for a tangible result (like say a blasted out crater of a country which is all our last president has to be remembered by, oh and crippling debt). And if you'd read the site, or the CNN news story, you'd have realized that and not made an ass of yourself. And yes, talk is cheap, but in your case I think you might want a refund.

This is common reasoning and I abhor it as a libertarian. I dig Obama, but the main defense is "Yeah, but Bush was worse" for every little problem that comes along. He's out of office, time to stop making that idiot your boogey-man anymore.

 

[Klarinette]

Doesn't this kind of thing take people years and years of work? I could be wrong, seeing as I don't pay all that much attention, but he hasn't been president that long yet and, quite frankly, I haven't seen a whole boatload of effort.

Maybe I slept through it. I do that for important things sometimes... o_o

 

[Seldon2639]

So basically you're saying because our current president is not constantly cutting Congress out of things, denying people their rights, ignoring terrorist threats until they happen, or lying his way into starting wars with countries (things which President Bush did, in case I wasn't blunt enough), he's doing a bad job.

I'm sorry but that is just the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can't just snap your fingers and expect things to happen instantly. Everything takes time, especially in terms of the geopolitical spectrum. And if you can't understand that well then I suggest you lock your doors and windows and never leave the house again because you're not capable of relating to reality at all.

I'm impressed. You must not interact with many dumb things in your world. YOu have my congratulations. I never said Obama was doing a "bad job", so I wonder if you might have a bit of a Freudian thing going on.

What I am saying is that the peace prize is based on actions (or at least ongoing projects). Obama's expression of a desire for peace shouldn't cut it. A president can be a good one without getting (or even deserving) the Nobel Prize. If we can avoid ad hominem attacks, and instead have a reasonable discussion of this (which I highly doubt given that the latest two responses to be have been replete with personal attacks), I'd be happy to. If not, we can cease what is largely a worthless game.

I fully accept that actions take time, which is why merely beginning an action shouldn't be enough to garner the prize. If any of his so-called plans come to any kind of fruition, give him the Nobel prize then. Until then, his plans are worth about the same in terms of geopolitical impact as a trip to the moon on gossamer wings.

I also never said that Bush was more deserving, nor did I say that Obama should deny people their rights (I criticized him for not closing Guantanamo), nor that he should begin wars (I criticized him for not ending the two wars within his power). What I was saying was that Obama has the power and the prerogative to do a whole hell of a lot for world peace. So far, he's done little. He's reneged on agreements to appease dictators, he's negotiated with terrorists, and he's made grandiose statements. Which of these exalts him, I'm not sure.

If you can't wrap your head around that pretty basic point, I'm sorry.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

all what obama did is promises , nothing but freaking promises , and after 2 months of the start of his presidency the fights started again in afghanistan , and promised to solve the middle-east problem and what you know , he didn't , so yeah , RATM said it once before and will say it again "a mass of promises begin to rapture like the pockets of the new world king "

Sort of early to be saying that he's just made empty promises. Everyone should know by now that the middle-east won't be solved in less than a year. Even so, from what I've seen, he's done a lot to lessen the tension between the Middle East and the West through diplomacy, though Afghanistan could turn out to be his "Bay of Pigs". I don't agree with everything he has done, and I don't think he has done enough for a Nobel Peace Prize, but I still hold that it's premature to judge him quite yet

 

[JWAN]

Couldn't they have at least waited untill he actually did something? Or maybe after his term is up? This seems a bit premature.

Oh and Gore won in 2007.

^ this
I'm not saying he isn't a nice person, I'm saying wait till he does something more than his predecessors.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Not that I don't like Obama, but he didn't deserve it. I think if he continues on the path he's on then he will eventually, but come on, he's only what... 10 months into his first term?

Oddly enough, I think that may be the point of it all. He's taken a few actions (especially with regards to nuclear non-proliferation), but most of it so far has been rhetoric...which apparently the Nobel Prize committee liked enough to say "finally, someone who's actually saying things worthwhile. All those things? Do those."

...and I've apparently been right about people blaming Obama for his getting the prize. God damn, I hate being right, sometimes.

 

[Roxilla84]

Oh, so, when did you make a significant step in reversing a leading world power's perceived hostility toward the followers of a major world religion? Or allowing more disclosure in the Freedom of Information Act? Or closing a detainee center that violated the Geneva Convention?

Failing that, I would love to hear all about your amazing advancements in saving the world from Cheetoh proliferation by selflessly ingesting them, despite the known hazards of cheese dust.

Hmm... (1) what significant step did he take toward actually reversing the perception? We're still in two wars, many (if not most) people in the Middle East still hate us (and western civilization), and since when is saying "oh, no, guys, we totally don't hate you" actually considered progress? (2) Uh... if you say so, but there's still a whole lot of information about our torture of detainees which is still unavailable to the public record. In point of fact, Obama issued a directive specifically stating that they not be released despite promising to do so in his campaign. What information has he "released"? His dates with Michelle? (3) you mean the one he promised to close in the first month of his presidency, which is still open, and which will likely be open for a long while according to his own Department of Defense.

Hmm... Yeah, I haven't done any of that stuff. Damn, looks like I'm not as good a candidate. Then again, I'm also not fighting two wars in the middle east and contemplating a huge troop increase in one of them. I also haven't reneged on a deal to help protect Western Europe, nor have I allowed Tehran to proliferate nuclear missiles while promising to strike the "heart of Israel". How about we call it a wash?

Nice little snark about cheetos, but I actually prefer Snickers.

But, here's what you don't get: impact should be measured in capacity, not in absolute terms. He can single-handedly end two wars, provide hugely greater foreign aid, curb global warming (through the executive agencies which work under his aegis), and basically change the entire outlook of the world. And yet he gets credit for saying "we don't hate Arabs", giving less information than he promised, and moving in baby steps to close Guantanamo. I want that job, apparently it's pretty easy to do "great" things in it.

Ok, I will freely admit he hasn't even come close to sealing the deal on a lot of things, and there will never be world peace, an end to hunger, or genetically engineered rabbits that spurt rainbows from their butts - and if there are, it won't be just because of one man (hardly - even if he's dumped all his points into Charisma). However, President Obama *is* working on improving things. And that is specifically my point; the Nobel Prize is often awarded to people who are in the middle of things. It often takes decades to see the end result of positive work, and the goal of the prize is to encourage and highlight the potential of a person's or many persons' work. If you want a prize awarded for impact, the Nobel Prize is *not* the prize you are looking for. So you can't expect to be justified in your outrage or disappointment (or whatever magnitude of WTF you are feeling) when someone is awarded the prize without having concluded their work - which, again, is common.

In all honesty, I agree they are sort of jumping the gun on the nuclear disarmament thing - however, it is a good bet that the long-sought-after pact with Russia will be reached soon, very likely in this president's term, in large part because of the deteriorating condition of Russia's stockpile (i.e., when they are no longer useful, they have much less of a bargaining chip to reduce America's own stockpile). But also keep in mind that the committee is using this award politically, as it is meant to be - they are using one of the world's most popular heads of state (even if the state he heads is divided on his effectiveness or direction) to highlight the necessity of nuclear disarmament to world peace - which is the whole point of the Nobel Peace Prize.

And thanks, I'm glad I went with Cheetohs. I almost said Snickers, but didn't think I could work in something about "nut dust" without getting banned for a week.

 

[McNinja]

I heard about this... and it is completely rediculous. The man has not done one thing, just talked a lot.

There is no reason he should have this.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Seems a bit premature, but I understand why they've given it to him--as a world figure goes, he stands almost alone in that people the world over cheered and looked forward to a new world, full of change (which goes to show how idiotic people can become). That he's willing to go to countries that are threatening nuclear power and negotiate, that he's willing to take a stand on things that have been ignored and pressured for years, that he's willing to be sensible goes quite a long way in the world today. It's impossible to ignore his charisma, his command of the language, and his general sense of self, so much so that heads of state across the world breathed easier just by having him in office. Yes, he's got a lot of shit to deal with, and yes, he's had to adapt some of what he said in the campaigns, but if any of us knew or had to deal with the things he has to on a daily, if not hourly, basis, then please, let those come forward and open their magic all-saving wisdom on how to make people realize how much of this is their damn fault. The economy is shit, we're involved in an occupation and a war, and people are losing their jobs.

How the hell is any of that his fault? Doesn't help that most of the republicans are just being bullheaded and useless, just wanting to see him fail, regardless of consequence. Where we stand with him in office is much more appealing than where we stood a few months ago, let alone a few years ago. The mere fact that he gives people hope, confidence, and respect is why they're giving it to him. Is it premature, probably. Is it not unwarranted? Maybe. But does he at least earn a nomination by mere presence, for willingness to enforce what should have been done years ago, and for actually opening peace talks in nations that had no interest in them before? Yes, that he does.

Snippage of a quote on exactly why Obama won

This guy knows. Good for him. Amazing how many of you can't read.

If you think that should be the case then I should get the Nobel Peace prize for PLANNING to find a cure for cancer...whether I succeed or not.

You wouldn't get the Peace Prize for that, you'd get the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Good job.

Let us also not forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was created after Alfred Nobel who invented...answers ladies and gentleman? Dynamite. An explosive compound that creates destruction. Yeah, peaceful in an ironic sort of way.

He created the peace prize in penance for the devastation that he knew would come of his discovery, not because he felt it was peaceful. He was atoning for all the devastation that would result from his unintentional discovery. And he didn't create dynamite, he discovered the compound and standardized process for the production of Nitroglycerin, one of the most unstable compounds to ever be weaponized. When he saw how much power for destruction his discovery had once it had been used, he worked tirelessly in hazardous conditions to identify a process to stabilize the compound, into something that could be used not for destruction but for medicine and urban expansion. It was for that that he created and received the Nobel Peace Prize, not for "creating dynamite".

 

[Semitendon]

Evidently the Committee for chosing Nobel Peace Prize winners has shit for brains.

I had my concerns about them when Al Gore won for making a video that was badly done, contained false scientific data, and was otherwise a documentary about why he would have made a better president. Even though I disagree with some of the basic concepts about global warming, there would have been a number of scientist that deserved it more.

Basically the Committee has shifted from people who actually deserve it, to trying to affect politics.

With Al Gore, at least they could point at his movie, and say "that's why we gave it to him"

But with Obama, they seem to not even be interested in an excuse for messing around in politics, giving him a peace prize for making good speeches. While people in politics can deserve the Peace Prize, most are given them for actually doing something. Obama has not done anything yet, so the Committee is trying to affect politics for their own personal interest rather than actual deservedness.

That said, I don't like Obama, but that does not mean that he won't come up with a good plan, or take some action, which would allow him to actually deserve the Peace Prize. But, he hasn't done anything yet, and there is no indication that he will definitely achieve anything that would deserve a Peace Prize.

At best, the Committee has prematurely given him a Prize, at worst they have given it to someone who doesn't deserve it. Either way, the Committee is being stupid.