PDA

View Full Version : Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize



Garvinator
09-10-2009, 09:24 PM
So I guess you win the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing significant.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/873844/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2009, 09:35 PM
The formal criterion for the award is "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."

The citations for some of the past recipients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates) are rather tangential to that aim.

arosar
09-10-2009, 09:46 PM
I gotta admit, the Peace Prize is possibly the weakest of the Nobels. The achievements are not as solid as finding the cure for stomach ulcer.

AR

Oepty
09-10-2009, 10:05 PM
My reaction was to reading the thread title, and learning what happened was a loud incredulous WHAAAATTTT.

What has he done?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2009, 10:10 PM
What has he done?

He has made the sorts of idealistic noises that the awarders of this increasingly feelgood award appreciate.

One of the problems with the Nobel Peace Prize is that knowing whether someone's campaigns for peace were actually effective can take a long time.

Oepty
09-10-2009, 10:17 PM
He has made the sorts of idealistic noises that the awarders of this increasingly feelgood award appreciate.

One of the problems with the Nobel Peace Prize is that knowing whether someone's campaigns for peace were actually effective can take a long time.

Perhaps I should have asked what has he achieved? It seems a very premature award to say the least. Maybe in 5-10 years we can say he did this and there is now peace there, but now, you have got to be kidding.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2009, 10:22 PM
Perhaps I should have asked what has he achieved? It seems a very premature award to say the least. Maybe in 5-10 years we can say he did this and there is now peace there, but now, you have got to be kidding.

Exactly. The point of my previous post was that you can get these awards for making idealistic symbolic noises on the world stage, whether anything actually happens as a result or not.

Perhaps if the committees are so desperate that they frequently see the need to dish out awards on the basis of rhetoric rather than proven results, or to tangential and speculative contributors such as Al Gore/IPCC, they should go back to their old habit of more frequently not awarding the prize in a given year.

Oepty
09-10-2009, 10:32 PM
Exactly. The point of my previous post was that you can get these awards for making idealistic symbolic noises on the world stage, whether anything actually happens as a result or not.

Perhaps if the committees are so desperate that they frequently see the need to dish out awards on the basis of rhetoric rather than proven results, or to tangential and speculative contributors such as Al Gore/IPCC, they should go back to their old habit of more frequently not awarding the prize in a given year.

Okay, not trying to disagree just a little stunned. If Obama is the best they had then giving it to noone would deliver the right message.
Scott

arosar
09-10-2009, 11:09 PM
Maybe the shoulda given it to Magnus Carlsen.

Look, seriously youse blokes, if they wanted a black fella they shoulda handed it to Morgan Tsvangirai. I mean at least he's made the effort to build bridges with that lunatic Mugabe (now there's a bloke who's got a problem with white people).

AR

Capablanca-Fan
10-10-2009, 01:08 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize has long been a joke, thanks to the politicization by Scandavian leftist politicians on the awarding committee. Think of terrorist leader Arafat, the successor of Hitler's Mufti al-Husseini (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php); Jimmy Carter, the most incompetent president of the last century ... And they are now rewarding Obamov, under whose watch the mad mullah and Holocaust denier of Iran may acquire nuclear weapons. Of course they didn't reward Reagan who won the cold war without firing a shot, althought they rewarded Gorbachev for finally heeding Reagan's "Tear down this wall!" (Berlin).

Basil
10-10-2009, 02:27 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize has long been a joke, thanks to the politicization by Scandavian leftist politicians on the awarding committee.

And lefties are so insulted that I'm so insulted (and as a result ever so potty-mouthed!)

They make me wanna puke. So bad!

Spiny Norman
10-10-2009, 05:09 AM
Andrew Bolt points out that the deadline for nominations for this award was 11 days after Obama's ascendancy to the presidency.

Its a bad joke. He hasn't achieved anything. His country is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is just in the process of deciding whether to send more troops to the latter.

It will be a bigger joke if the winner of the Peace Prize increases the troop commitment to Afghanistan just a week or so after announcement of the award.

Spiny Norman
10-10-2009, 12:10 PM
This comedy contribution from Bolt's blog:


Barack Obama has won the 100 metres at the London Olympics, to be run in 2012.

IOC spokesman Che Riviera said the committee had decided to award Obama the gold medal after the president made a series of speeches in which he promised to run an astonishing 9.5 seconds.

“Obama captured the world’s attention, and expressed values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population,” Riviera said.

“We would hope this [TSK: awarding him the medal] will enhance what he is trying to do.”

Spiny Norman
10-10-2009, 12:11 PM
Followed up in the comments by one wag:


Next year’s Nobel Physics prize has been awarded to a bloke who has been working on a perpetual motion machine. He reckons he’s gonna have something to show for it “real soon now”.

Basil
10-10-2009, 01:34 PM
Lefties get very excited by talk and sentiment.

Delivery, results and back-flips count for very little. Talk and sentiment - that's the ticket. Generations of lefties have been built and marched faithfully on talk and sentiment - all artfully not delivered - but as said, lack of delivery is moot.

Capablanca-Fan
10-10-2009, 01:39 PM
The Nobel Committee Dishonors Itself (http://townhall.com/columnists/DrPaulKengor/2009/10/09/the_nobel_committee_dishonors_itself)
by Dr Paul Kengor, professor of political science, Grove City College

...

It does when you consider what the Nobel Committee has become, and how it operates according to leftist political objectives. The committee has honored Barack Obama in order to make a political statement in support and encouragement of his foreign policy. The committee knows that its award has nothing to do with the absent foreign-policy accomplishments of a presidency not even a year old, or a diplomatic record that doesn’t exist. Its purpose is to help Obama pursue the kind of foreign policy favored by the leftists who run the Nobel Committee.

The European-globalists on the committee agree fully with the leaders who heaped praise on Obama during the U.N. circus two weeks ago. They agree with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that Obama has brought “hope” to the world. They agree with Fidel Castro’s hailing Obama’s lead on “climate change.” They agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Obama agrees with him on America’s past “ugly behavior.” Like Moammar Kaddafi, they wish Obama could be president “forever.”

This award is not a statement on what Obama has done but a rubber-stamp approval of his plans for America and the world. The committee wants to lend cover to Obama as he pursues a global course opposed by conservative Republicans back home and his generals and commanders abroad. To be sure, this is the kind of meddling in domestic politics that the Nobel Committee usually decries.

That said, I’m actually quite pleased with this action. Why? Because it further undermines the credibility of the Nobel Committee as an allegedly impartial organization. This further shows that the group is inherently political and unabashedly left-wing. In other words, this gesture has the noble effect of exposing the ignoble Nobel Committee for what it really is.

...

antichrist
10-10-2009, 05:47 PM
So I guess you win the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing significant.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/873844/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize

What he has done is to attempt to change the arrogant attitude of the USA that stuffs up the lives of billions of other people on this planet. He never said it was easy or that he would do it overnight but at least he is headed in the right direction. I feel he will fail due to the vested interests of the powerbrokers there (where is Axiom when I need him?) but at least he has made the right noises that have not been made in that country in my aware lifetime. I could write a lot more but know that it is wasted.

He already has to modify his desired stances due to the rigedness of vested interests, whether being US-based or overseas-based. But he knows what is necessary for peace and justice in this misery-ridden world but he is not Jesus and is unlikely to walk across the water anytime.

Basil
10-10-2009, 05:58 PM
What he has done is to attempt to change the arrogant attitude of the USA that stuffs up the lives of billions of other people on this planet.
Actually, both his speeches and actions are very similar to others. His delivery (like most lefties) is far more heartfelt and comforting in style, but the messages are more or less the same. Take Iran. He's saying 'tow the line or we're going to ramp it up'. Same old.

The difference is people like you filtering what you want to hear from the same words! You people make me wanna puke!

Welcome back!

antichrist
10-10-2009, 06:36 PM
Actually, both his speeches and actions are very similar to others. His delivery (like most lefties) is far more heartfelt and comforting in style, but the messages are more or less the same. Take Iran. He's saying 'tow the line or we're going to ramp it up'. Same old.

The difference is people like you filtering what you want to hear from the same words! You people make me wanna puke!

Welcome back!

I think his original speeches was to "reach out" to US's enemies but in many cases the dye has been cast. He trod a delicate path when the Irani presi was on the warpath after that "rigged" election. Iran may sort itself out in time - another revolution may be on the way.

The same goes for Afghanistan and Iraq. But in some of these cases he was almost a lone voice in voting against initial US involvement now he has to clean up the mess created by others - even decades earlier.

We must concede that there is great hypocricy in the Middle East that I will elaborate on later.

For starters just look at the Carter Doctrine of obtaining oil by force if necessary from the Middle East - that is what the military/industrial complex does to even peace-loving presidents like Carter.

The US is f..ked and is f..king up the rest of the world. (I take a bow before Axiom)

Basil
10-10-2009, 06:47 PM
Piffle.

Obama had a mandate and a half! Along with Rudd, he had a whopping, cringing and apologist middle class majority that gave him carte blanche to do and say as he pleased. When he was talking pre- and post election 'peace and love and whatever', the collective hysteria and expectation was palpable (and sickening to people like me).

Rhe excuse for happened instead is not the slosh that you are peddling. What happened is (like Rudd and all other lefty dreamers) upon election, he got a clue. He got briefed by professionals.

These briefings and real world lessons, be they on security or economy are complete shock for these dreaming fools and then the water-downs and back-flips happen. Set your clock by it.

Obama, like Rudd, (on green, on economy, on foreign affairs) is getting his wake-up call. And then you observers have to justify he changed landscape with rubbish.

antichrist
10-10-2009, 06:49 PM
they are locking up here so get back tomorrow - don't bang your head on wall waiting

Zwischenzug
10-10-2009, 07:44 PM
Orly Taitz is already filing papers to try to overturn the Nobel Peace Prize results (or at least postpone the actual awarding of the prize).

Ian Murray
11-10-2009, 09:08 AM
Avaaz is petitioning Obama to step up to the challenge:

The winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize has just been announced -- and it's US President Barack Obama.

Obama himself says he's "surprised, humbled" and doesn't yet deserve it -- but he's accepted the Prize as a call to action, "to confront the common challenges of the 21st century" together. On too many pressing issues, the US President seems boxed-in by stubborn interests and has not yet taken courageous action. He deserves to hear our congratulations -- and our message to be bolder.

Let's do our part to define the challenge this Prize poses to Obama and us all -- let’s flood Obama with a million messages of encouragement and urgency, pressing him to turn hope into action in the coming months on nuclear disarmament, climate, and desperately-needed peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Sign the Obama Peace Petition now and we’ll deliver it directly to the White House -- then forward this email to all your friends:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_peace_prize

In his Cairo speech this June, Obama spoke of “the world we seek” -- one where “extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own” and nuclear energy does not trigger conflict -- a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all are respected.

Obama’s words have offered a vision of profound change: all this can perhaps not be achieved overnight. But his push for Middle East peace has not yet been strong enough to overcome the resistance of hardliners in the region. Meanwhile, hawks and conservatives in the US are pressing him to commit 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, instead of changing course to focus more on peace, development and diplomacy.

There is a real risk today that the hope of change will be lost. Leaders are judged finally by their actions, not their words. Only by following through with courageous, transformative action for peace can Obama fulfil his promise -- and only then will history judge that this Nobel Peace Prize is truly deserved.

We know Obama cares about global public opinion -- indeed, we may be his best conscience. So let’s send him a flood of congratulations and urge him to fulfil his promise through real action -- take action now at this link, then spread the word, and we’ll deliver a global flood of signatures direct to the White House:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/obama_peace_prize

With hope and determination,

Paul, Raj, Brett, Graziela, Pascal, Paula, Iain, Alice, Ricken, Benjamin and the whole Avaaz team

ABOUT AVAAZ Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means "voice" in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and Geneva. Click here (https://secure.avaaz.org/en/report_back_2/) to learn more about our largest campaigns. Don't forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace and Bebo pages! You can also follow Avaaz on Twitter!

Spiny Norman
11-10-2009, 10:15 AM
... nuclear disarmament, climate, and desperately-needed peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan ...
Its is within Obama's power to deliver any of that? I'd like to see that ... :whistle:

Ian Murray
11-10-2009, 12:26 PM
Its is within Obama's power to deliver any of that? I'd like to see that ... :whistle:
Quoted out of context - it actually reads:
"..turn hope into action in the coming months on nuclear disarmament, climate, and desperately-needed peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan"

Obama can take action. He can't deliver by himself of course - it takes good will on all sides

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Quoted out of context - it actually reads:
"..turn hope into action in the coming months on nuclear disarmament, climate, and desperately-needed peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan"

Obama can take action. He can't deliver by himself of course - it takes good will on all sides
Of course, but that's one thing lacking. While Obamov dithers, appeases, and trashes his own country, Iran, led by the Holocaust denier who wants to wipe Israel off the map, is developing nukes. Obamov's words have achieved nothing, not even the Olympics for his home city. Likewise, Chamberlain brought back "peace in our time" from Munich.

antichrist
11-10-2009, 03:26 PM
Why all the racism on who can have nuke weapons. It is one in all in or no one has them. If America via Carter Doctrine can use military use to guarantee oil why can't Iran also use force to acquire nuke power? Why the hypocrisy?

Being a Holocaust denier is almost totally irrelevant. What he is is a product of religious fundamentalism - something that you Jono is also stupidly guilty of - only of a different brand. "Your" people (in earlier generations) have burnt heretics at the stake just as modern day Muslims also wipe out heretics.

It is all only relative.

Also Israel is a product of fundamentalism - also just of a different brand. And they kill and torture in it's name.

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2009, 03:46 PM
Why all the racism on who can have nuke weapons. It is one in all in or no one has them. If America via Carter Doctrine can use military use to guarantee oil why can't Iran also use force to acquire nuke power? Why the hypocrisy?
America has never used bombs except to win WW2. Iran's mad mullah has made it clear that it wants to wipe out Israel, so Israel can't allow him to get nukes. The Holocaust, which the mad mullah denies, shows that when a madman rails about his intentions to wipe out the Jews, believe that he means every word of it!


Being a Holocaust denier is almost totally irrelevant.
If you think that, you're almost as bad.


What he is is a product of religious fundamentalism — something that you Jono is also stupidly guilty of — only of a different brand.
Talk about equivocation — see Anyone for fundamentalism? (http://creation.com/anyone-for-fundamentalism)


"Your" people (in earlier generations) have burnt heretics at the stake just as modern day Muslims also wipe out heretics.
The total death toll in three centuries of the Inquisition is less than that of 11-9, as historian Henry Kamen documents (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html).


Also Israel is a product of fundamentalism— also just of a different brand. And they kill and torture in it's name.
Not so; it is the only secular democracy in the Middle East, and kills only those who wish to destroy her.

antichrist
11-10-2009, 03:53 PM
I will come back to this another day - it is Sunday and we all know what that means.

Bereaved
11-10-2009, 10:30 PM
Hi everyone,

I don't know if this is quite the right place for this but, please consider

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Basil
12-10-2009, 04:38 AM
Hi everyone,

I don't know if this is quite the right place for this but, please consider

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive
:lol:

TheJoker
12-10-2009, 10:15 AM
The only thing I can think of that Obama has done for the peace process, is move US policy away from unilateral decision-making towards more multilateral decision-making, through forums such as G20. I not sure how much of it is rhetoric, probably most. Doesn't seem worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize but certainly a step in the right direction

arosar
12-10-2009, 10:21 AM
I just hope no one will do Kanye West when Obama accepts his prize.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
12-10-2009, 10:32 AM
Al Gore has been nominated for Nobel Prize in Physics (for his work in climatology).

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2009, 10:39 AM
The only thing I can think of that Obama has done for the peace process, is move US policy away from unilateral decision-making towards more multilateral decision-making, through forums such as G20. I not sure how much of it is rhetoric, probably most. Doesn't seem worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize but certainly a step in the right direction
What are you on about? GWB should have invaded Iraq unilaterally, instead of dithering for support from the feckless UN, whose resolutions Saddam had violated. Even so, there were many countries who supported America. But all Obamov has done has been neo-Chamberlainite appeasement and trashing his own country, with the same results: Ahmadi-Nutjob, like his fellow Jew-hater Hitler, has been emboldened to increase his arms.

TheJoker
12-10-2009, 11:02 AM
What are you on about? GWB should have invaded Iraq unilaterally...

If they genuinely believed Iraq represented a clear and present danger to USA citizens then yes unilateral action might have been justified. But since there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and only Words of Mass Deception, then countries intiating unilateral warfare against others based on bogus claims isn't helping anyone.

We certainly know in retrospect that the invasion was a mistake, overall everyone including Iraqis are worse off.

Except of course the Al Quaeda who benefited substaintially for the political destabilisation gaining a substaintial foothold in Iraq where there was none previously

Basil
12-10-2009, 11:09 AM
If they genuinely believed Iraq represented a clear and present danger to USA citizens then yes unilateral action might have been justified. But since there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and only Words of Mass Deception, then countries intiating unilateral warfare against others based on bogus claims isn't helping anyone.

We certainly know in retrospect that the invasion was a mistake, overall everyone including Iraqis are worse off.
Oh oh here we go again. However I won't add fuel because again each person's perspective is set in stone, but I will ask


Where did the WMD that Iraq was originally known to have, that Rudd said was an empirical fact, that Iraq was under a duty (UN) to dispose of, and show whence they were disposed, go?

And when Iraq didn't show (and still hasn't!!!) the method and location of destruction (and Saddam was playing brinksmanship), what was the UN meant to do? Talk (again)? To a person who used to have WMD and was a known genocidal maniac?

morebeer
12-10-2009, 11:34 AM
A Nobel Prize, in many instances, is as meaningful as a TV week gold Logie.

TheJoker
12-10-2009, 12:33 PM
Oh oh here we go again. However I won't add fuel because again each person's perspective is set in stone, but I will ask


Where did the WMD that Iraq was originally known to have, that Rudd said was an empirical fact, that Iraq was under a duty (UN) to dispose of, and show whence they were disposed, go?

And when Iraq didn't show (and still hasn't!!!) the method and location of destruction (and Saddam was playing brinksmanship), what was the UN meant to do? Talk (again)? To a person who used to have WMD and was a known genocidal maniac?

Yes there were some WMD's unaccounted for the question is whether there was an immediate threat of deployment against the USA. What USA did was clearly misrepresent the threat in order to gain support for military action. Even their own government has stated that.

Well the UN were obviously doing a reasonable job. Since, Iraq was found to have no remaining WMD in the end, so they had actually disarmed. I believe there was also a question of whether it was even possible to official account 100% of previously known Iraqi WMD.

If there was any real threat of WMD, the US wouldn't have been so open about the ir plan to invade for the fear of a premeptive WMD strike by Iraq. Seems like it was the opportune time to invade with little or no risk of WMD retalliation, but still enough public doubt about WMD capability to generate support for a war.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2009, 01:25 PM
Yes there were some WMD's unaccounted for the question is whether there was an immediate threat of deployment against the USA. What USA did was clearly misrepresent the threat in order to gain support for military action. Even their own government has stated that.
Very convenient. Yet a huge number in Obamov's own party said that Saddam had WMDs and had used them, and was a clear and present danger. They changed their tune just for political reasons, when the populist winds changed direction to oppose the war.

And as Gunner says, KRudd is on record saying that it was a fact that Saddam had WMDs. So it's unsustainable that Bush/Howard "lied" us into war.


Well the UN were obviously doing a reasonable job. Since, Iraq was found to have no remaining WMD in the end, so they had actually disarmed.
Or moved them to Syria. But the conditions of the ceasefire was that Saddam had to show that he had disarmed, instead of playing games with the weapons inspectors. Instead Saddam bluffed, and this bluff was called.


I believe there was also a question of whether it was even possible to official account 100% of previously known Iraqi WMD.
The onus was on Saddam to comply with directives of the UN. This was a condition for the Gulf War ceasefire. Yet Saddam continually flouted these, so the ceasefire was off; the Iraq War was just a resumption of hostilities thanx to Saddam's violations.

Note that Obamov hasn't ended the Iraq occupation, and has instead upped hostilities in Afghanistan. But now he is tying his generals' hands behind their backs, just like in Vietnam. There's no point fighting a war unless you win it.


We certainly know in retrospect that the invasion was a mistake, overall everyone including Iraqis are worse off.
We know nothing of the kind. There is one less mass murderer in the world, so no one to fill the mass graves or gas the Kurds.

Kevin Bonham
12-10-2009, 01:29 PM
There's a great discrepancy between the prestige of the Nobel Prize and the method by which awards are decided. The committee that decides the prize consists of Norwegians who are typically ex-politicians and appointed in rough proportion to the current makeup of the Norwegian parliament. The current lineup is two ex-Labour, one ex-Socialist Left, one ex-Conservative and one ex-Progress Party (the latter is a libertarian-right party).

As a method of selecting such a prominent world prize it is a joke.

arosar
13-10-2009, 10:59 AM
While we're still yappin' on about this undeserved Peace award (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/peace-prize-becomes-a-travesty-20091011-gs9f.html) to Obama, the Norwegians Swedes have now, for the first time ever, awarded the Nobel Prize for economics to a sheila.

Elinor Olstrom gets the gong (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125534373296580027.html) along with Oliver Williamson.

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
13-10-2009, 12:25 PM
The only thing I can think of that Obama has done for the peace process, is move US policy away from unilateral decision-making towards more multilateral decision-making, through forums such as G20. I not sure how much of it is rhetoric, probably most. Doesn't seem worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize but certainly a step in the right direction
Replace "unilateral" with "independent" (which means absolutely the same in the context) and it suddenly does not sound so bad.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-10-2009, 12:35 PM
While we're still yappin' on about this undeserved Peace award (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/peace-prize-becomes-a-travesty-20091011-gs9f.html) to Obama, the Norwegians have now, for the first time ever, awarded the Nobel Prize for economics to a sheila.

Elinor Olstrom gets the gong (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125534373296580027.html) along with Oliver Williamson.

AR

Interesting work, but what does it have to do with science?
On the hand, what most of economics has to do with science anyway?

Let's hope the science awards (physics and chemistry) stay out of political controversy.

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2009, 12:49 PM
Interesting work, but what does it have to do with science?
On the hand, what most of economics has to do with science anyway?
Good question: why is it decided by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences? All the same, the "Nobel Prize in economics" was not one of those established in Alfred Nobel's will, but is in reality the The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, which began in 1968


Let's hope the science awards (physics and chemistry) stay out of political controversy.
Most of the time, but there were some blatantly politicized omissions occasionally such as Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Raymond Damadian (http://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contribution-to-mri-nobel-prize-controversy-returns).

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2009, 04:31 PM
"This year's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama can only hasten the decline in prestige of an award that has already gone to people like Yasser Arafat, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan (who presided over the Iraqi oil-for-food scam) and the fabulist Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchu. For this year's Nobel, the deadline was February 1, barely ten days after Mr. Obama had assumed the presidency. Though the Nobel committee of five Norwegian politicians presumably considered the evidence over the summer, it's fair to say their award represents little more than wishful thinking that Mr. Obama's diplomatic efforts will ultimately bear fruit. Other U.S. Presidents have won Nobels, but for actual accomplishments. Teddy Roosevelt helped broker a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson worked to build a lasting peace after the end of World War I, however unsuccessful that effort later proved. Even Jimmy Carter won the Peace Prize in 2002 after more than two decades of humanitarian efforts as a former president. The Nobel Committee is said often to make its final decision at its last meeting just before the announcement. If so, President Obama has gotten a consolation prize for the failure of the U.S. to secure the 2016 Olympics. But that won't take away the sense that his award has more to do with political correctness than the realities of peace. Reading the Nobel Committee's explanation of its decision, President Obama appears to have won this year's prize because he's not his predecessor, George W. Bush." --Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund

"It is absurd and it is embarrassing. It would even be infuriating if it were not such a declaration of emptiness. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has embarrassed itself and cheapened a great award that had real meaning. It was a good thing, the Nobel Peace Prize. Every year the giving of it was a matter of note throughout the world, almost a matter of state. It was serious. It mattered that it was given to a woman like Mother Teresa in 1979. ... Her life was heroic, epic, and when she was given the Nobel Peace Prize, it was as if the world were saying, 'You are the best we have. You are living a life that should be emulated.' ... Some Peace Prizes have been more roughly political, or had a political edge, and were of course debatable. ... It was always absurd that Ronald Reagan, whose political project led to the end of the gulag and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and who gambled his personal standing in the world for a system that would protect the common man from annihilation in a nuclear missile attack, could not win it. But nobody wept over it, and for one reason: because everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA -- no conservatives need apply. This is the way of the world, and so what? Life isn't for prizes. Yet even within that context, the giving of the peace prize to President Obama is absurd. He doesn't have a body of work; he's a young man; he's been president less than nine months. He hopes to accomplish much, and so far -- nine months! -- has accomplished little. Is this a life of heroic self-denial, of the sacrifice of self for something greater, of huge and historic consequence, of sustained vision? No it's not. Is this a life marked by a vivid and calculable contribution to the peace of the world? No, it's not. This is an award for not being George W. Bush. This is an award for not making the world nervous. This is an award for sharing the basic political sentiments and assumptions of the members of the committee. It is for what Barack Obama may do, not what he has done. He hasn't done anything. In one mindless stroke, the committee has rendered the Nobel Peace Prize a laughingstock." --columnist Peggy Noonan

"The whole business of a bunch of Scandinavian worthies doling out the profits of a long-gone dynamite maker's fortune has always smacked of the worst sort of self-satisfied plutocratic worthiness. But this takes the biscuit. President Obama remains the barely man of world politics, barely a senator now barely a president, yet in the land of the Euro-weenies (copyright PJ O'Rourke) the great and the good remain in his thrall. To reward him for a blank results sheet, to inflate him when he has no achievements to his name, makes a mockery of what, let's face it, is an already fairly discredited process (remember Rigoberta Menchu in 1992? Ha!). That's not the point. What this does is accelerate the elevation of President Obama to a comedy confection, which he does not deserve, and gives his critics yet another bat to whack him with. Shame on the Norwegians." --London's Daily Telegraph chief political commentator Benedict Brogan

TheJoker
13-10-2009, 04:31 PM
Replace "unilateral" with "independent" (which means absolutely the same in the context) and it suddenly does not sound so bad.

Call it what you want euphemisms dont make much difference to me.

Kevin Bonham
13-10-2009, 04:46 PM
. Reading the Nobel Committee's explanation of its decision, President Obama appears to have won this year's prize because he's not his predecessor, George W. Bush." --Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund

I think he is absolutely correct about that - that the committee saw Bush as such a warmonger that they think that simply by not being Bush (with the restoration that brings to America's reputation) Obama has brought the world closer to peace.

But one flaw in that logic is that Bush's time was up constitutionally and whoever was elected after him would not have been Bush; Obama did not have to defeat Bush to get elected. Even McCain would probably have escalated Afghanistan far more than Obama will but still would have pulled back from many aspects of Bush's foreign policy.


But nobody wept over it, and for one reason: because everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA -- no conservatives need apply.

I would be interested to see some stats on the makeup of the committee over time to see whether this is actually valid. The current committee has a 3.5-1.5 split (I'm counting the libertarian as a draw) so it may be said to have a "liberal" (in the US sense) majority. But past committees would have been conservative-dominated at times when conservative parties had the numbers. It may be that liberal-dominated NPP committees are more likely to make political awards than conservative ones, but we don't know that.

Garvinator
13-10-2009, 04:58 PM
In one mindless stroke, the committee has rendered the Nobel Peace Prize a laughingstock." --columnist Peggy Noonan
I do not agree with this. I think what the title now really is the Nobel Hope Prize for whoever can inspire hope for the future the best because it is clearly not being awarded for past achievements.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2009, 09:24 AM
Call it what you want euphemisms dont make much difference to me.
If the leftist criticise US for making independent foreign policy, who would listen and care. But say unilateral decision and it suddenly sounds worst.
What's wrong with any country having independent foreign policy?
The policy itself, of course, might be right or wrong, but it's a different discussion altogether.
BTW, when you go to the bathroom, do you make this decision unilaterally?

TheJoker
14-10-2009, 11:00 AM
What's wrong with any country having independent foreign policy?

Generally, policy decision that involve a stakeholder consultation and negotiation process result in higher quality outcomes. Since its foreign policy we are talking about there are various external stakeholders that should form part of decision-making process if quality outcomes are to be achieved.

Also stakeholder consulation generally results in improved stakeholder relations. Since we are talking about world peace we are essentially talking about relations between nations.

Don't get me wrong I don't think what Obama has done to move away from independent foreign policy decision-making to negotiated decision-making warrants a Nobel Peace Prize, far from it.


BTW, when you go to the bathroom, do you make this decision unilaterally?

Usually unilaterally, but if I'm going to stink the place up I tend to consult the wife to see if she would like to use the bathroom first.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-10-2009, 01:59 PM
Usually unilaterally, but if I'm going to stink the place up I tend to consult the wife to see if she would like to use the bathroom first.

You seem to forget wider community.

TheJoker
14-10-2009, 10:59 PM
You seem to forget wider community.

They're not stakeholders since the decision has insiginifcant impact upon them.

Unlike US foreign policy which has broad effect on many other nations.

Different types of decisions require different levels of consultation. The fact that you can't see the difference between a person going to the bathroom and US foreign policy speaks for itself.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2009, 07:10 AM
Unlike US foreign policy which has broad effect on many other nations.
Yeah, does most of the heavy lifting, while European (soon to be Eurabian) Transies (transnational progressivists) blab and appease. Furthermore:


"The Peace Prize judges won't see it this way, but America has gone to Europe twice in the past century to fight for peace. This is an old concept, and has to do with killing killers so they can't kill anymore. It cost America a lot to do this, and we kept no territory, as they say, beyond the graves where our soldiers lie. America then taxed itself and gave its wealth not only to its allies but to its former adversaries, to help them rebuild. We didn't actually have to do this. We did it to make the world better. We did it to foster peace. (They should give us a prize.)" --columnist Peggy Noonan

Zwischenzug
15-10-2009, 10:50 AM
Seems like a good place for it.

PMJBblg71a4

Ian Murray
17-10-2009, 08:57 AM
Why Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize
Tony Kevin October 14, 2009
www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=17021 (http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=17021)


...
The Right's argument that Obama hasn't achieved anything yet is essentially a smokescreen for their bile at knowing that Obama got this international award precisely because, truly, he is 'not Bush' — that Obama has launched an international healing, after the great damage worked by his predecessor. These critics cannot bear the world's relief and thanks that Obama is not Bush. This humiliates them, and they are rationalising their rage.

There are areas of concrete peacemaking achievement already. In US-Russian relations, the provocative NATO missile shield project in Central Europe has been cancelled, the Georgian adventure set to rest, and the Russian government has visibly warmed to the West in response. Nuclear disarmament negotiations are moving again.
...
In diplomacy, the distinction between words and action, aspiration and achievement, is subtle — too subtle for some. If well-chosen inspirational language (like Obama's highly symbolic and allusive speech in Cairo, directed to the Arab world) improves the climate of negotiation in long-standing angry disputes, this is an achievement in itself. I find the claim that Obama hasn't achieved anything yet in international peacemaking a caricature of reality. He has already achieved much, and he brings hope for more.

Basil
17-10-2009, 12:07 PM
Ian, do you believe (and support) the vast majority of the passage above?

Ian Murray
17-10-2009, 03:28 PM
Ian, do you believe (and support) the vast majority of the passage above?
By and large I agree with the complete article. Who has done more for world peace?

For another point of view see The Nobel Committee Got It Right (http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/14/nobel-committee-got-it-right) at newmatilda.com

Basil
17-10-2009, 06:38 PM
Who has done more for world peace?
I can't think of anyone off the top off my head.

I don't believe Obama has done nearly enough to deserve the gong- if anything at all. However, I am not criticising him for his efforts. I think he's doing OK in that regard - but then so is everyone else. The fact that he delivered a couple of speeches that the writers of The West Wing or even your standard lefty feel-good academic could pen, counts for very little in reality. I am criticising the Nobel people.

Bereaved
18-10-2009, 02:20 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_to_enter_diplomatic_talks

I think this site is overall wonderful, but be mindful that some videos may offend.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Ian Murray
18-10-2009, 06:10 PM
I can't think of anyone off the top off my head.

I don't believe Obama has done nearly enough to deserve the gong- if anything at all. However, I am not criticising him for his efforts. I think he's doing OK in that regard - but then so is everyone else. The fact that he delivered a couple of speeches that the writers of The West Wing or even your standard lefty feel-good academic could pen, counts for very little in reality. I am criticising the Nobel people.
I was as surprised as anyone at the prize award. However on reflection I believe he's a worthy recipient - more so than other possible contenders at the moment.

He's been pretty busy on the world stage and behind the scenes during his nine months in office - see his foreign policy goals and milestones at http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign_policy

As for his speeches, he's very hands-on. The LA Times report on the development of his Cairo speech to the Muslim world makes interesting reading - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/02/nation/na-cairo-speech2?pg=5

Spiny Norman
18-10-2009, 06:44 PM
Either he's worthy of the prize in his own right, or he's not. (I think the latter). Just being better than other possible contenders ought not to be sufficient to win a Nobel prize. I would have preferred to see the Peace Prize not awarded at all this year, rather than awarded to someone with so little to show for it. It rather diminishes the perception of the other prize winners I think ... and that is sad, because most of them are receiving their prize for genuine achievements hard won over many years. But I must confess that the year they awarded one to that terrorist Arafat was the year I realised that the Nobel peace prizes were a complete waste of time and were without integrity.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-10-2009, 12:36 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_to_enter_diplomatic_talks

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

MichaelBaron
19-10-2009, 12:46 PM
True, if they give it to Arafat, why not give it to Obama.

I find it odd that such an award can go to an active political figure who is new to the political arena rather than to someone with a long track record. I do not see the argument of Obama deserving the Noble prize due to the great things he is yet to do as valid.

It is just like giving the literature prize to a writer who is expected to write and publish a great novel in the near future.

Bereaved
26-10-2009, 11:45 PM
hi everyone,

There is gold simply everywhere these days, this courtesy of Alex Wohl via Facebook

http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/oct/24/obama-wins-world-chess-championship/#

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 01:44 PM
What Will the President Do When His Policies Fail? (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=463)
Burt Folsom
27 Oct 2009

The main problem with massive government intervention into the economy is that it produces more stagnation than growth. Thus, when the massive intervention fails to reduce unemployment or stimulate economic growth in the long term, the leaders must come up with explanations for the failure. Few of us are candid enough to admit we failed; we like to find others to blame. Thus, the search for scapegoats is almost inevitable. The question, then, is what will Obama do when his policies fail?

...

Let’s turn to history, especially FDR, to look for clues on how leaders have scapegoated economic disaster. When FDR, after launching the New Deal, faced persistently high unemployment and economic stagnation he had three responses. The first response, which I will discuss today, is that he used businessmen as a scapegoat for supposedly thwarting recovery. With high tax rates on income, corporations, and even the undistributed profits of corporations, most businessmen refused to risk their capital. FDR denounced them, and even used the IRS against some of them (former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon in particular).

President Obama has already adopted this scapegoat approach, but he is only at the criticism stage right now. He started with President Bush, the alleged source of most economic trouble, and then, like FDR, shifted to businessmen. They were allegedly benefiting from tax cuts and their salaries were outrageous. With health care, Obama switched to insurance companies who were supposedly ripping off consumers. Doctors as well, the president insisted, were removing tonsils and unnecessarily cutting off feet for loads of cash.

...