Originally posted by: Craig234
Did a single right-winger here say simply, that while they disagree with Obama on issues, congratulations on winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and not it benefits the US? I saw zero.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
(2) Any poster who claims Gandhi deserves the award more than Obama, clearly does not understand the Nobel rules, since 1974,
all nominees have to be living persons.
Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948.
Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't understand why he won this award.
Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.
- Assistant Secretary PJ Crowley, a spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Originally posted by: Craig234
I could cite several example, like the nuclear arms reductions he's supporting, or the abandonment of the 'missile shield' program in Europe, but there are a good number that are generally for 'peace and diplomacy' and mark a strong change from the Bush administration.
Under the new plan, Washington would replace the land-based sites in Poland and the Czech Republic with a network of sensors and sea-based interceptors designed to protect Europe against short- and medium-range missiles from Iran. The system would eventually add land-based interceptors in about 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: Lemon law
(2) Any poster who claims Gandhi deserves the award more than Obama, clearly does not understand the Nobel rules, since 1974,
all nominees have to be living persons.
Except, you know he was nominated several times when he was alive. Might wanna read up before posting something as fact.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr...cles/gandhi/index.html
Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't understand why he won this award.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Earth to sciwizam, you miss the point, you are talking ancient history, and with the post 1974
Nobel rules, Gandhi will never again be in the running. Maybe sad but true.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't understand why he won this award.
Read the reasons they gave. They believe in the importanve of global cooperation and diplomacy, things the Bush administration were bascially at war with.
More than half the world's effective military power lies with one nation. That same nation is by far the largest supplier of arms for the world's violence.
The policies of that nation turning away from militarism and returning to cooperation is core to the Nobel Peace Prize's agenda for peace.
Many commentators have noted how this prize adds to the pressure om Obama to act consistently with having accepted it. You should understand how that's helpful to peace.
Just as people misunderstand the Time 'Person of the Year award' as an endorsement of the person, infurating people that it was awarded to Hitler, they may not understand that the award is not an endorsement of the recipient in general, but is for certain things - which is why a war criminal like Kissinger, a terrorist like Arafat, can receive it - for specific actions that are in a good direction. They are pushing for what Obama promises - I could cite several example, like the nuclear arms reductions he's supporting, or the abandonment of the 'missile shield' program in Europe, but there are a good number that are generally for 'peace and diplomacy' and mark a strong change from the Bush administration.
It may be a somewhat valid criticism to say the award was given partly against Bush rather than for Obama, but a State Department spokesman made the point about that:
Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.
- Assistant Secretary PJ Crowley, a spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Obama's speech for this was right on target - that he didn't 'deserve' the award but would view it as a 'call to action' for pursuing peace.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: Lemon law
(2) Any poster who claims Gandhi deserves the award more than Obama, clearly does not understand the Nobel rules, since 1974,
all nominees have to be living persons.
Except, you know he was nominated several times when he was alive. Might wanna read up before posting something as fact.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr...cles/gandhi/index.html
Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948.
Earth to sciwizam, you miss the point, you are talking ancient history, and with the post 1974
Nobel rules, Gandhi will never again be in the running. Maybe sad but true.
The fact that Gandhi did not get that peace prize I too think he deserved may be a past sin, but today, it has ZERO relevance to why Obama got the peace prize in 2009.
Why are you beating a DEAD HORSE?
Got a bitch, please take it up with the Nobel committee, as if they will listen to you!!!!!!!!!!!
Got a spare 1.4 Million? You too can establish the swiwisam peace Prize. Failing that, don't second guess they who put their money where their mouth is.
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Lemon law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: Lemon law
(2) Any poster who claims Gandhi deserves the award more than Obama, clearly does not understand the Nobel rules, since 1974,
all nominees have to be living persons.
Except, you know he was nominated several times when he was alive. Might wanna read up before posting something as fact.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr...cles/gandhi/index.html
Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948.
Earth to sciwizam, you miss the point, you are talking ancient history, and with the post 1974
Nobel rules, Gandhi will never again be in the running. Maybe sad but true.
The fact that Gandhi did not get that peace prize I too think he deserved may be a past sin, but today, it has ZERO relevance to why Obama got the peace prize in 2009.
Why are you beating a DEAD HORSE?
Got a bitch, please take it up with the Nobel committee, as if they will listen to you!!!!!!!!!!!
Got a spare 1.4 Million? You too can establish the swiwisam peace Prize. Failing that, don't second guess they who put their money where their mouth is.
Whoa there Sparky... We're not allowed to even question this? Who died and made you dictator for life?
Oh wait. I forgot. I think giving the award to a guy who was President for 11 days when nominated is a farce.. and because he happens to be black that makes me a racist. Racists aren't allowed to speak their mind. I forgot that part.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Obama's speech for this was right on target - that he didn't 'deserve' the award but would view it as a 'call to action' for pursuing peace.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't understand why he won this award.
Have you not heard that old saying, God works in mysterious ways.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
What he has done, however, is work to set a dramatically different tone and reduce international tensions. Those are quite critical to peace, in some ways even more so than treaties and organizations since both are regularly ignored by those who want war. As I said earlier, while I agree that not-Bush is a great foundation for changing the tone, Obama didn't rest there. He actively reached out and engaged the world. Is that setting the bar too low? Perhaps so, but much of the world seems to think it's more than enough.
Originally posted by: dali71
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Link
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
For the first time a sitting American President, elected by a majority of the people, received a great international honor. You would think most Americans would be happy. The world certainly seems to be. It's just a few losers and sour puses who seem to be whining. Seems like there is no pleasing them.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were both awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while still in office.
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
What he has done, however, is work to set a dramatically different tone and reduce international tensions. Those are quite critical to peace, in some ways even more so than treaties and organizations since both are regularly ignored by those who want war. As I said earlier, while I agree that not-Bush is a great foundation for changing the tone, Obama didn't rest there. He actively reached out and engaged the world. Is that setting the bar too low? Perhaps so, but much of the world seems to think it's more than enough.
But he didn't do these things in the first 11 days in office!!!!!!
The nomination settled on before he even took office as the deadline was Feb 1. If there was ever a popularity award given, this was it. What a fucking joke. And it will ultimately hurt him here, not help him, as it will only serve to galvanize the opposition and independents who are souring on this clown faster every day even more.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sciwizam gives the sugarcoated reason by saying, "Talk about missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that, as you put it "Gandhi deserves the award more than Obama", as if they are arguing why Gandhi wasn't awarded the prize this year. They are arguing about the legitimacy or the relevance of the prize, when such a person as Gandhi wasn't awarded it. "
When we should call a spade a spade, its simply an effort to cheapen the Nobel Peace Prize now that Obama won it. And all this crying about of Gandhi not winning was not present before Obama won it, yet gets dusted off and waved as a bloody flag by every partisan hack who does not like what the Nobel committee has done at a given time.
I gotta conceded one thing about the anti Obama crowd, they keep very busy in collected ever bogus argument they can.
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.