Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...10/09/obama/index.html

Good unbiased read.

Did you see the article Greenwald linked to?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...errorists.html?showall

Wow. The 180 that both parties have done is incredible. In just a few months, the Democrats have become exactly what they accused the Republicans of being.

It's quite disgusting actually. Even more disgusting is the people around here who lap it up and pretend that they're better than "the enemy".

Heh, I read this somewhere, then going by DNC's logic the President is siding with the terrorists, as both Hamas and Obama want Israel to stop expanding the settlements.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow, what a joke. Giving it to someone in hopes they push agenda X is rediculous.

Uh, the 'agenda' is diplomacy over war. That's their agenda. You don't like it, too bad. Why the hell do you think the prize was created? To help support the role of diplomacy.

uhm no. the prize was not created to support the role of diplomacy.

"Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace"

the only thing you can say is "for peace" but the idea is what you have DONE for peace. what has Obama done?

he does not deserve it NOW. i am hopeing that in 2-3 years that is diffrent.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DesiPower

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sapiens74
where is Kanye when we need him?

In a thread filled with mostly idiocy, that's the first really humorous post I saw

you were born after the post started or you are too lazy to go through all the pages or just busy sipping koolie ?

Someone who isn't an idiot trying to argue there were other humorous posts would likely supply the example to make the point. FWIW I skimmed about half the thread.

 

[Patranus]

Still shocks me that people are being slaughtered in the streets of Iran while Obama does nothing yet somehow that 'doing nothing' promotes world peace?

 

[PJABBER]

There is a breaking news announcement.

Wait for it... Wait for it...

Barack Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize and...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Still shocks me that people are being slaughtered in the streets of Iran while Obama does nothing yet somehow that 'doing nothing' promotes world peace?

So says the idiot who'd bomb Iran if they don't stop with their nuclear technology

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Still shocks me that people are being slaughtered in the streets of Iran while Obama does nothing yet somehow that 'doing nothing' promotes world peace?

yeah...idiot.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow, what a joke. Giving it to someone in hopes they push agenda X is rediculous.

Uh, the 'agenda' is diplomacy over war. That's their agenda. You don't like it, too bad. Why the hell do you think the prize was created? To help support the role of diplomacy.

uhm no. the prize was not created to support the role of diplomacy.

"Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace"

the only thing you can say is "for peace" but the idea is what you have DONE for peace. what has Obama done?

he does not deserve it NOW. i am hopeing that in 2-3 years that is diffrent.

Wrong. First, my comment was about the Nobel PEACE prize, not all the Nobel prizes - you really didn't get that, and thought you were making a point by mentioning chemistry etc.?

Second, I'm not quickly findiing the Nobel committee comments, but they said the award was about the importance of global diplomacy.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
where is Kanye when we need him?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow, what a joke. Giving it to someone in hopes they push agenda X is rediculous.

Uh, the 'agenda' is diplomacy over war. That's their agenda. You don't like it, too bad. Why the hell do you think the prize was created? To help support the role of diplomacy.

uhm no. the prize was not created to support the role of diplomacy.

"Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace"

the only thing you can say is "for peace" but the idea is what you have DONE for peace. what has Obama done?

he does not deserve it NOW. i am hopeing that in 2-3 years that is diffrent.

Wrong. First, my comment was about the Nobel PEACE prize, not all the Nobel prizes - you really didn't get that, and thought you were making a point by mentioning chemistry etc.?

Second, I'm not quickly findiing the Nobel committee comments, but they said the award was about the importance of global diplomacy.

i added for peace. Not that it matters.

its for things you have accomplished. NOT talking about. there were others that have accomplished far more for peace then Obama has. there has never been a award for diplomacy. getting the world to like the US more is great. but not deserving of a Nobel Prize.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: OCguy
Wow, what a joke. Giving it to someone in hopes they push agenda X is rediculous.

Uh, the 'agenda' is diplomacy over war. That's their agenda. You don't like it, too bad. Why the hell do you think the prize was created? To help support the role of diplomacy.

uhm no. the prize was not created to support the role of diplomacy.

"Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace"

the only thing you can say is "for peace" but the idea is what you have DONE for peace. what has Obama done?

he does not deserve it NOW. i am hopeing that in 2-3 years that is diffrent.

Wrong. First, my comment was about the Nobel PEACE prize, not all the Nobel prizes - you really didn't get that, and thought you were making a point by mentioning chemistry etc.?

Second, I'm not quickly findiing the Nobel committee comments, but they said the award was about the importance of global diplomacy.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Let be bold what he meant.

Second, they didn't talk about the importance of global diplomacy, they cite "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Many are wondering about those extraordinary efforts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Reading comprehension FTL.
Let be bold what he meant.

Second, they didn't talk about the importance of global diplomacy, they cite "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Many are wondering about those extraordinary efforts.

You win the irony of the month award. I've never had an annual one, but you would be a finalist.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Triumph
Seriously? The Nobel Peace Prize? I'm by no means an Obama hater, but WTF? Don't you have to actually DO something to get this?

He's not George Bush and his VP isn't Darth Cheney. Sure, the bar is low, but this is a titanic achievement in and of itself and such a HUGE improvement for the rest of the world.

Of course, all of you bouncing around in your parochial right-wing echo chamber would have zero idea how relieved the rest of the entire world is.

It's not an "acheivement" by any measure, you have to do something to acheive something.

 

[AliasX]

This just reaffirms how political the Nobel is. What a joke. Kind of ruins it for people who win and actually do stuff. Sigh. Whatever...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Arafat won it too...

As did Peanut boy...

Martin L King won it too.

I think PJ and Patranus won it also................

 

[PJABBER]

Though awarding Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace is a self delusional joke, the impact may be significant.

This very minute, Obama is wringing his hands considering deploying 20 - 60,000 more troops into Afghanistan - what if he realizes that the World is looking to him for leadership and he opts instead to withdraw completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

We have hundreds of thousands of troops rotating through Iraq - what if he realizes that the World is looking to him for leadership and withdraws completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

Time is running out to deal with Iran before Israel does. What if Obama promises to nuke Israel if they take military action in Iran or against the Palestinians, Syrians, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.? The World is looking to him for leadership and Israel withdraws completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

A good part of Central America and northern South America is in upheaval and there are more genocidal wars brewing in Africa. What if Obama withdraws all military missions from these regions and promises to never intervene so long as he is President? Peace in our time, right?

Obama has said that America has no right to criticize other countries and they have their sovereign right to have whatever form of government they choose. The U.S. will not intervene under any circumstance. The World is looking to him for leadership and withdraws completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

Nuclear weapons have been a threat to World Peace since the 1940's. Obama has pledged to eliminate them from the U.S. arsenal. If we are not going to make war anymore, why do we need them? A unilateral disarmament is just what the World is looking to him for leadership on. Peace in our time, right?

If the U.S. unilaterally disarms, we WILL have Peace in our time. This is what the point of the Nobel Committee is - the U.S. MUST take that first step and never look back. To them, Obama is the Man for the job.

The Obama Administration efforts to bring peace to any part of the world have been meaningless exercises in rhetoric thus far. And until he got this Prize for Peace, chosen just days after he won an election, where was the HOPE things would CHANGE?

Now we have renewed HOPE and the whole world will join hands in His praise. He just has to deliver.

 

[sciwizam]

Let me repeat waggy "the only thing you can say is "for peace" but the idea is what you have DONE for peace." If the goal was global diplomacy, why not have a conference. They are awarding someone a medal to recognize his/her efforts towards peace. We are talking about achievements, not the idea.

From Nobel himself: "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.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so what are they going to do when he actually does something? rename the award? the nobel-obama award?

QFT.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...10/09/obama/index.html

Good unbiased read.

Did you see the article Greenwald linked to?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...errorists.html?showall

Wow. The 180 that both parties have done is incredible. In just a few months, the Democrats have become exactly what they accused the Republicans of being.

It's quite disgusting actually. Even more disgusting is the people around here who lap it up and pretend that they're better than "the enemy".

It is like I have been saying all along -- these guys (Dems and Reps) are just two sides of the same coin. Yet the resident partisan lapdogs on both sides of the aisle in this forum can't see it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sciwizam
Let me repeat waggy "the only thing you can say is "for peace" but the idea is what you have DONE for peace." If the goal was global diplomacy, why not have a conference. They are awarding someone a medal to recognize his/her efforts towards peace. We are talking about achievements, not the idea.

From Nobel himself: "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.

and he has done that? really? be honest and really think on it.


he has done a lot of talking. thats it. There are others that have went out and done stuff that deserve the prize more.

im not knocking Obama. I just don't feel he deserves the award now.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...10/09/obama/index.html

Good unbiased read.

Did you see the article Greenwald linked to?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...errorists.html?showall

Wow. The 180 that both parties have done is incredible. In just a few months, the Democrats have become exactly what they accused the Republicans of being.

It's quite disgusting actually. Even more disgusting is the people around here who lap it up and pretend that they're better than "the enemy".

It is like I have been saying all along -- these guys (Dems and Reps) are just two sides of the same coin. Yet the resident partisan lapdogs on both sides of the aisle in this forum can't see it.

/this


good way to put it. they are two sides of the same coin. one will bitch how the other side is acting even though they are guilty of the same shit.

and people wonder why the country is going to the shithole.

 

[lupi]

Woot, soccer moms across the world unite. The participation trophy concept has finally made it to the nobel prize committee level!

 

[PJABBER]

Though awarding President Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace may be a delusional joke, the impact may also be more significant than we may think at first.

This very minute, Obama is wringing his hands in considering the deployment of an additional 20 - 60,000 troops into Afghanistan - what if he realizes that the World is looking to him for leadership and he opts instead to withdraw completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

We have hundreds of thousands of troops rotating through Iraq - what if he realizes that the World is looking to him for leadership and withdraws completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

Time is running out to deal with Iran before Israel does. What if Obama promises to nuke Israel if they take military action in Iran or against the Palestinians, Syrians, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.? The World is looking to him for leadership and he insures Israel withdraws completely from the field of battle? Peace in our time, right?

A good part of Central America and northern South America is in upheaval and there are more genocidal wars brewing in Africa. What if Obama withdraws all military missions from these regions and promises to never intervene so long as he is President? Peace in our time, right?

Obama has said that America has no right to criticize other countries and they have their sovereign right to have whatever form of government they choose. The U.S. will not intervene under any circumstance. The World is looking to him for leadership and he now chooses to withdraw completely from any form of direct intervention? Peace in our time, right?

Nuclear weapons have been a threat to World Peace since the 1940's. Obama has pledged to eliminate them from the U.S. arsenal. If we are not going to make war anymore, why do we need them? A unilateral disarmament is just what the World is looking to him for leadership on. Peace in our time, right?

If the U.S. unilaterally disarms, we WILL have Peace in our time. This is the point of the Nobel Committee - the U.S. MUST take that first step and never look back. To them, Obama is the man for the job.

The Obama Administration efforts to bring peace to any part of the world have been meaningless exercises in rhetoric thus far. And until he got this Prize for Peace, chosen just days after he won election to the Presidency of the United States Of America, where was the HOPE things would CHANGE?

Now we have renewed HOPE and the whole world will join hands in His praise.

He just has to deliver.

Obama's Nuclear Challenge

Obama's Nuclear Challenge
Comment
By Jonathan Schell
This article appeared in the May 4, 2009 edition of The Nation.

Jonathan Schell is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at The Nation Institute and teaches a course on the nuclear dilemma at Yale. He is the author of The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger.

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," President Obama said at the open-air rally in Prague on April 5. With these words came a change in the global air, as if a window had been opened a crack in a dark room that had been sealed shut for decades. On only two previous occasions had an American president proposed the abolition of nuclear arms. The first was Truman's proposal at the United Nations in 1946 to place all nuclear technology under international control and devote it entirely to peaceful purposes, and so to strangle the nuclear age in its cradle. Stalin's Soviet Union, bent on developing the bomb, would not agree.

The second was the summit meeting at Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1986, where President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev came within an ace of agreeing to full nuclear disarmament. Their bid foundered on Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, which he would not give up and Gorbachev would not accept. Thereafter the pronuclear consensus was restored. Its chief assumption, embodied in the doctrine of deterrence, was that safety from nuclear weapons paradoxically depended on their continued presence. Unremitting readiness to carry out genocide and worse had somehow been accepted as an inescapable commitment of even the greatest civilizations.

Obama's words disrupted this collective suicidal trance. He placed his commitment in an appropriate context: Prague had been the scene of Czech protests against Soviet domination, and Obama saluted those "who helped bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot." The reference was doubly fitting. In the first place, the popular movement broke the spell of omnipotence that had surrounded the totalitarian empire. Like the bomb, the Soviet Union had been shielded by a reputation of immovability. The resistance movements in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere, using the "power of the powerless," in the phrase of Václav Havel, gave the lie to this illusion. They revealed the possibility of "the impossible" and made it happen. Obama acknowledged the parallel with nuclear disarmament when he took note of those "who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve," and, advising Czechs to remember the lessons of their Velvet Revolution, declared fatalism "a deadly adversary."

In the second place, it was that same resistance, together with Gorbachev's perestroika, that by ending the cold war opened the clearest path to nuclear disarmament since 1946. Now that the rivalry that had been used to justify the threat of annihilation had been liquidated, might it be possible to eliminate the weapons that posed that threat? Might this "impossible" thing also be possible? The first three post-cold war presidents passed up the opportunity. Obama has seized it.

Unfortunately, as soon as he announced the goal of abolition, he added that it would not "be achieved quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime." With those words, the crack of the window seemed to narrow, the moral gloom thickened and the fatalism he had just renounced settled in again. Sighs of relief were almost audible among the upholders of the pronuclear consensus. As The Economist noted, "The world may never get to zero. But it would help make things a lot safer along the way if others act in concert. If North Korea and Iran can keep counting on the protection of China and Russia in their rule-breaking, progress will be all too slight." In other words, a likely insincere commitment to abolition is to be a new talking point in stopping others from joining the nuclear club, which, for its part, will go on as before.

A further sentence in Obama's speech gave support to such views. Speaking of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the president said, "The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them." But moving toward disarmament is not the same as disarming. It is one thing to say to the world, "We all must do without nuclear weapons," and quite another to say, "You must do without nuclear weapons, and we will keep 1,500 of them for as long as we are all alive." In the latter case, the abolition commitment would become one more layer of hypocrisy in a situation already overloaded with it. But after more than sixty years of deceptive promises, the countries that do without nuclear weapons will not accept a "bargain" that gives a new lease on life to a double standard they already reject.

These fears are mitigated by the agenda of measures Obama announced as first steps toward abolition. A wish list of arms controllers of recent years, they include ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; negotiating a fissile material cutoff treaty; negotiating mutual cuts in nuclear warheads with Russia, perhaps to a level of 1,500 or 1,000; and fortifying the NPT. These proposals would be welcome in any context, but they take on added meaning when viewed as way stations on a journey to a nuclear-weapons-free world. Most interesting, perhaps, was Obama's promise to host a Global Summit on Nuclear Security in the next year. Will it concentrate solely on nonproliferation or acknowledge the indispensable link between that goal and full nuclear disarmament? The answer, of course, will not depend on Obama alone. He has brought the nuclear dilemma back into public view. But his vision is a work in progress, a ground of contention on which all who desire disarmament are invited to exert themselves.

Was Obama's speech historic? Not yet. It was an invitation to participate in history. It will be historic if we make it so. Obama says he is prepared to postpone abolition until he has died. He is 47. I wish him long life. Let us free the world of nuclear weapons while he is still among us.

Merged

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

 

[waggy]

do we? yes we do. but many things have to change in not just how people think but hwoe we consume. not just products but energy. we are never going to have world peace while still giving billions to the ME for oil.

but there are many many things that need to change. we will not see it in our lifetime.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So the bottom line is that Obama got selected for no good reason, but because he's not Bush, let's give him the prize. OK, I'm down with that.