LuvtheSkins428 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I do not believe he deserved this award. Regardless of political views, I've talk to both sides and they feel the same. He didn't do anything to deserve this award. I'm not knocking him or anything, but it negates the integrity of this award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's interesting to watch people complain about this award. The guy takes the US from a nation seen as hostile and hated by most of the world, and changes the entire tone of geo-political politics... but he doesn't deserve this award? The guy campaigns on the concept that we should talk to our enemies instead of driving us closer to global conflict... immediately implements this strategy. And he hasn't done anything for peace? He campaigns on ending the Iraqi war, his time table is adopted by the Bush administration, and suddenly Iraq is no longer a major source of international anger and discord.... and he hasn't done anything for peace? People just don't like to give Obama credit. He's done plenty for the cause of peace, the change has been drastic globally. Americans just don't realize it because they've never cared for what "foreigners" think and frankly don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 If Obama never did anything, he would still be more deserving than Bush. Take off your rose colored lenses dude, everyone knows Bush ****ed up alot, but the stuff he did in Africa was worth a Nobel Peace Prize....that's some serious humanitarian ****. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-ruxin/the-real-bush-legacy-may-_b_91457.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Take off your rose colored lenses dude, everyone knows Bush ****ed up alot, but the stuff he did in Africa was worth a Nobel Peace Prize....that's some serious humanitarian ****.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-ruxin/the-real-bush-legacy-may-_b_91457.html Well if you ignore everything else he did and focus on africa sure... trouble is it's hard to get by the fact that Iraq was proven to have been no threat and his diplomacy did more to ramp up tension then back us away from it. PEACE is the operative war in PEACE PRIZE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 So this puts him in the same elite category as Kissinger and Arafat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 So this puts him in the same elite category as Kissinger and Arafat.... And Nelson Mandela. And Martin Luther King Jr. And Mother Teresa. And... Anyway, I was thinking about this throughout the day. I think the big thing that Obama has done is make the U.S. morally important again throughout the world. With Iraq and other things, the US kind of stopped being the shinning beacon on the hill for the rest of the world to try to emulate. Whether you agree or think it's a reality, Obama has brought that notion back for many in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Congratulations to him, the Nobel prize organization put a lot of pressure on his shoulder since he is the first winner who has not yet accomplished his task. I hope he will be worthy of this prize for the benefit of this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsonian Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama is far from being a symbol of peace. Rather, he is a symbol of the same warmongering policies implemented by George W. Bush. It's worth noting that the nominations for this year's prize had to be in by February 1, 2009. At that point, Obama had only been in office for 12 days. Nevertheless, he had already given orders for a drone bombing in Pakistan that killed at least 15 people, including 3 children and several civilians. (Pakistan, by the way, has now had 3 million refugees flee towns ever since the Pakistani army took a stronger stance against the Taliban at the behest of Hillary Clinton and the State Department). It now looks as if Pakistan could be the main front for these wars. Moreover, the war efforts in Afghanistan have only increased. Obama has added 21,000 troops this year and looks to be adding more in the near future, possibly as many as 40,000. He has ruled out diplomacy and affirmed that a troop withdrawal is not under consideration. We have yet to see a significant troop reduction in Iraq. We’ve armed the Sunnis, who will presumably kill Shiites and possibly Americans if the war breaks out again. In addition, Obama continues to take a hostile stance against Iran, threatening to attack it unless it relinquishes its rights as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Not to mention that Obama is pushing through Congress a record military spending bill that keeps the US spending more than the top 45 nations on earth combined on weapons and methods of war. While Obama's rhetoric and tone is more peaceful than Bush's, his actions belie his words. Until that trend reverses itself, this man is undeserving of the prize. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Openly changing US policy in front of the UN.His speech in Egypt. His nuclear disarmament with Russia. His winning effects on racism. WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2007 Bush Orders Reduction In Nuclear Weapons to 1/4. Bush Receives Humanitarian Award For HIV/AIDS, Health Efforts In Africa An analysis of George W. Bush's 2002 proposal for peace between Israel and Palestine Wiretapping still in full force Iraq still going Gitmo still going into effect and will not close Prisoners still going to Egypt Said he'd send troops to Pakistan Still fighting in Afghanistan Norway is Far left in Parliament and just want to be heard again in their ideals. The Dog comment was great though. ------------------------------ I think its the actually doing part that should be important as neither of these two deserve a "peace" prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Anyway, I was thinking about this throughout the day. I think the big thing that Obama has done is make the U.S. morally important again throughout the world. With Iraq and other things, the US kind of stopped being the shinning beacon on the hill for the rest of the world to try to emulate. Whether you agree or think it's a reality, Obama has brought that notion back for many in the world. Confess! You would drink his bath water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS@THEGOALLINE Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 "Better to have accolades thrown at you than shoes." --- CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Confess! You would drink his bath water... Many here in the ES tailgate would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Many here in the ES tailgate would. Confess! You would drink his bath water... I wonder if you realize how petty you sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I wonder if you realize how petty you sound. I'm not sure any of us realize what we're saying about ourselves on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's interesting to watch people complain about this award. The guy takes the US from a nation seen as hostile and hated by most of the world, and changes the entire tone of geo-political politics... but he doesn't deserve this award? The guy campaigns on the concept that we should talk to our enemies instead of driving us closer to global conflict... immediately implements this strategy. And he hasn't done anything for peace? He campaigns on ending the Iraqi war, his time table is adopted by the Bush administration, and suddenly Iraq is no longer a major source of international anger and discord.... and he hasn't done anything for peace? People just don't like to give Obama credit. He's done plenty for the cause of peace, the change has been drastic globally. Americans just don't realize it because they've never cared for what "foreigners" think and frankly don't know. He campaigned on a lot of things. He didn't change anything in Iraq. And he certainly didn't change anything there in the 1st two weeks of his presidency. He certainly hasn't brought peace to Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas. He hasn't shut down Guantanamo. Sure he campaigned on a peaceful platform. He also campaigned on health care reform...head over to the hospital and use that. The Nobel people can do whatever they want with their award. It really doesn't matter to me and I wonder why it matters to anyone on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I'm not sure any of us realize what we're saying about ourselves on here. Hey, I spent about five pages arguing how Obama was undeserving of the award at this time towards the beginning of the thread. I'm covered on this one. Some of the drama queening is just a bit over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 He campaigned on a lot of things. He didn't change anything in Iraq. And he certainly didn't change anything there in the 1st two weeks of his presidency. He certainly hasn't brought peace to Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas. He hasn't shut down Guantanamo. Sure he campaigned on a peaceful platform. He also campaigned on health care reform...head over to the hospital and use that. The Nobel people can do whatever they want with their award. It really doesn't matter to me and I wonder why it matters to anyone on here. It's a very prestigious award although I can see why Republicans would dislike the criteria-it all basically eliminates them from contention. IMO, over the last 8 years the USA was going down a very dangerous path. We were to a point where the mainstream belief was that we couldn't so much as talk to our enemies because that would give them legitimacy. Nevermind that many of them gain legitimacy through elections, or that there was very little historical precedent for not engaging enemies (the USA engaged the USSR throughout the cold war). We were going down a path of increased tensions. Obama changed all that before he even became President. He won the debate about international dialogue in the primary against Hillary, and again in the general election vs. McCain. This is a sea change and it has huge implications. The benefits are already being felt diplomatically and materially. Iran is alowing weapons inspectors into their nuclear facilities and this was only made possible by improved relation with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's a very prestigious award although I can see why Republicans would dislike the criteria-it all basically eliminates them from contention. IMO, over the last 8 years the USA was going down a very dangerous path. We were to a point where the mainstream belief was that we couldn't so much as talk to our enemies because that would give them legitimacy. Nevermind that many of them gain legitimacy through elections, or that there was very little historical precedent for not engaging enemies (the USA engaged the USSR throughout the cold war). We were going down a path of increased tensions. Obama changed all that before he even became President. He won the debate about international dialogue in the primary against Hillary, and again in the general election vs. McCain. This is a sea change and it has huge implications. The benefits are already being felt diplomatically and materially. Iran is alowing weapons inspectors into their nuclear facilities and this was only made possible by improved relation with Russia. Right on sport. So what will the Nobels do if he ever actually accomplished what he stated in his first 2 weeks of his Presidency? Rename the award? So the one accomplishment you can point to is Iran allowing weapons inspectors into their nuclear facilities? That is it? Do you honestly believe that he belongs in the company of past winners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 It's a very prestigious award although I can see why Republicans would dislike the criteria-it all basically eliminates them from contention. Yep sure does. Socialists & leftists voting themselves awards. Go figure It's a private organization so they can do what they wish but IMO and many others it's pretty weak to award it to BO at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Right on sport.So what will the Nobels do if he ever actually accomplished what he stated in his first 2 weeks of his Presidency? Rename the award? So the one accomplishment you can point to is Iran allowing weapons inspectors into their nuclear facilities? That is it? Do you honestly believe that he belongs in the company of past winners? For the zillionth time in this thread, the committee considers events up until the time of award. So your 2 week comment is completey without merit. Also, the criteria is not always based on material results. Look at JLGs list of other nominees, many of them didn't achieve anything necessarily, they just stood up for what they believed in. But to your point, Obama single handedly changed the way Americans think about diplomacy. He challenged our flawed status quo against Hillary as well as the Republicans, and he won. The success Obama is achieving in Iran would never have been possible under Hillary or any Republican. But that's not the point. The point is, he took a bold stand in the name of peace. And for that he deserves the award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Oh ok it's for potential!! "The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I would be careful of declaring early success...Mission Accomplished ring a bell? Some petty people might use it against you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Ah, I love the smell of synapse in the morning. 32 pages already. The hack-serving media frolicking like it's (war on) Christmas come early. I'm not sure any of us realize what we're saying about ourselves on here. When the news broke, a wise man said to me "watch the idiot parade this inspires on both sides." While wise, he sometimes projects a less gentle soul than you, mardi. Fortunately he doesn't visit the tailgate, so he's unaware of how impressive some of the floats here can be. Could make him downright cynical. There is a small handful of semi-meaningful points to be made on the matter, and they have been made. But so much is simply the standard and endless fare of bending and twisting already deformed and atrophied integrity and reason, just to serve more partisan babbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 The esteemed David Ignatius weighs in: The Nobel Peace Prize award to Barack Obama seems so goofy -- even if you’re a fan, you have to admit that he hasn’t really done much yet as a peacemaker. But there’s an aspect of this prize that is real and important -- and that validates Obama’s strategy from the day he took office. The Obama team came to the White House convinced that one of America’s biggest problems in the world was “reflexive anti-Americanism,” as Obama put it in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly two weeks ago. They saw America’s unpopularity as a big national-security problem, and they were right. So they set about winning hearts and minds (the Nobel judges among them) from Day One. Obama gave a series of speeches calculated to position him as the Un-Bush. He listed his achievements in that same U.N. speech -- halting torture, ordering the closure of Guantanamo, withdrawing from Iraq, backing negotiations on climate change, and paying America’s debts at the United Nations itself. Europeans liked it, too, when the president picked a fight with Israel over settlements, and when he showed himself so determined to negotiate with Iran that he overlooked the fact that its government had stolen an election. That’s what he’s being honored for, really: reconnecting America to the world and making us popular again. If you want to understand the sentiments behind the prize, look at the numbers in the Transatlantic Trends report released last month by the German Marshall Fund. Obama’s approval rating in Germany: 92 percent compared to 12 percent for George Bush. His approval in the Netherlands: 90 percent compared to 18 percent for Bush. His favorability rating in Europe overall (77 percent) was much higher than in America (57 percent). Obama’s achievements are in the “good intentions” category, but that doesn’t mean they are insignificant. America was too unpopular under Bush. The Nobel committee is expressing a collective sigh of relief that America has rejoined the global consensus. They’re right. It’s a good thing. It’s just a little weird that they gave him a prize for it. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/obamas_nobel_and_americas_popu.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 ......... the same warmongering policies implemented by George W. Bush. ................, he had already given orders for a drone bombing in Pakistan that killed at least 15 people, including 3 children and several civilians. (Pakistan, by the way, has now had 3 million refugees flee towns ever since the Pakistani army took a stronger stance against the Taliban at the behest of Hillary Clinton and the State Department). It now looks as if Pakistan could be the main front for these wars. Moreover, the war efforts in Afghanistan have only increased. Obama has added 21,000 troops this year and looks to be adding more in the near future, possibly as many as 40,000. He has ruled out diplomacy and affirmed that a troop withdrawal is not under consideration. .................. Just my two cents. Pray tell are you really opposed to the Pakistanis taking a stronger stance against the Taliban (ie fighting back)? And what diplomacy can the President use in Afganistan? As far as I can tell diplomacy isn't an option the choices are standing pat, increasing the effort, or surrendering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.