Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[jcp123]

before posting this, did you happen to read my post, with the reasons they chose him?

Yes. And it still left me scratching my head. I can't find the merit, sorry. Like I said, wait until he brokers a few deals, concrete ones, so that we can actually judge things to be deserving or undeserving. That would take another year at least I would think. I don't expect to win a car show because my concept of a car is great, I expect to win it when I build the car, build it right, and can show it to be superior to other entries.

I also don't want this used, as it personally feels like it is, as a way to "shame" myself into following him blindly like some sheep. I get he's well-received around the world, OK, that's great. Bush admittedly did a lot of damage internationally (and there's other ways in which I had some severe difficulties with him), though I never understood the unabashed hate directed towards him, nor the post-Bush orgasm that Obama seems to be partaking in. But do not beat me over the head to go to church, drive a modern car, or follow Obama, Bush, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, or anyone else like a blind sheep.

[csl177]

Yes. And it still left me scratching my head. I can't find the merit, sorry.

If after reading the rational of the Nobel committee for his selection doesn't pursuade you of the positive political benefits to the United States, you are an idealogue. Meaning incapable of considering any argument outside your own un- or mis-informed belief. No thoughtful dialogue can be had without first considering an opposing view as valid.

I also don't want this used, as it personally feels like it is, as a way to "shame" myself into following him blindly like some sheep. I get he's well-received around the world, OK, that's great. Bush admittedly did a lot of damage internationally (and there's other ways in which I had some severe difficulties with him), though I never understood the unabashed hate directed towards him, nor the post-Bush orgasm that Obama seems to be partaking in.

A thorough reading of the Bush administration history (factual, not polemical) should make it clear. Certainly no one should be brow-beaten to support Obama; your opinion is your own. But if you voted for or supported Bush and his cronies and now feel guilty about it, just apologize for doing so. We'll forgive you. It's not as if the US hasn't previously elected dangerously inept governments that did despicable things in the past... repeatedly. It's our unpleasant history.

But do not beat me over the head to go to church, drive a modern car, or follow Obama, Bush, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, or anyone else like a blind sheep.

No thinking person would do such a thing. In that regard, you are among friends.

As I said earlier: he's got a lot on his plate, and my view is the award could be an albatross around his neck if he doesn't perform as expected. But after hearing the howls from the Nobama crowd, I'm hoping he does enough to silence the minority that simply wants him to fail, regardless of what it would mean for our country, and by extension, the World. Without irony, that group insists they are patriots, and the rest of us are not.

[ThisBlood147]

Isn't that sort of what they did though? only it was the world telling them the cliff was right there?

As for Obama, It's too soon, plainly. when are they going to give him another Nobel? when Peace is restored and all the worlds people are holding hands? people are still incredibly resentful of the US and this isn't really going to help. He's gone a long way to restore some prestige to the role of the US president....but that does not a Nobel Prize winner make.

Your post pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I think its a bit premature to be showering him with such an award. What happens if in the next year his policies tank............is everyone gonna just shrug and let it go? I want the guy to do right by the country...I'm not in it to see him fail. But there has been a fair bit of back patting going around on Obama simply because he is the exact opposite of Bush policy-wise. I'm less interested in his outlooks or agenda's and more interested in what he is going to accomplish. Proof, as they say........is in the putting.

that's true, because progressives believe in Progress (kinda in the name there) where as conservatism doesn't believe in advancing culture or developing new ways of thinking or governing. if conservatives ruled the world, we would still be learning creationism in our segregated schools. that is not what Nobel is about.

I think you're hammering on conservatism as if it were satanism. Right wing fundamentalism maybe........sure. But I don't think that nailing everyone with conservative views with those kinds of labels is the way you want to go with that argument. Too many ppl bitch about the left or right wing string pullers and forget to realize that most rational ppl fall into the middle. And that's where I want my President. I don't want him sitting too far left or too far right. Both of those chairs bring consequences with them.

[cmcpokey]

I think you're hammering on conservatism as if it were satanism. Right wing fundamentalism maybe........sure. But I don't think that nailing everyone with conservative views with those kinds of labels is the way you want to go with that argument. Too many ppl bitch about the left or right wing string pullers and forget to realize that most rational ppl fall into the middle. And that's where I want my President. I don't want him sitting too far left or too far right. Both of those chairs bring consequences with them.

i may have gone a bit extreme in my argument, but the idea of a moderate is appalling to a hard line conservative. moderates are tolerant of change, whereas a true conservative is not.

[jcp123]

If after reading the rational of the Nobel committee for his selection doesn't pursuade you of the positive political benefits to the United States, you are an idealogue. Meaning incapable of considering any argument outside your own un- or mis-informed belief. No thoughtful dialogue can be had without first considering an opposing view as valid.

As I say, I am willing to give credit where credit is due; he has shown me nothing in the arena of international relations for me to point to, however, to say he's done a good or a bad job. You believe I am trying to "down" Obama; that's not my purpose. I don't have enough data on his foreign policy to down him, nor at the same time do I have enough to say he's done a good job either. I am as yet neutral and waiting for results. That's why I say the Nobel was undeserved; there is no track record, no results, no "credit history", nothing but a distinct lack, as yet, of anything, as he's primarily concentrated on domestic issues. That's also why I say to ask again in a year or two when he's undoubtedly hammered out some deals and has something, anything, concrete on which to judge him. I may yet say he could be deserving of such an honor.

[csl177]

As I say, I am willing to give credit where credit is due

That's precisely what the Nobel committee has done, pre-emptively. What the award means to the ROW is the important thing to consider, and the USA's improved status is the benefit. I can understand (and have some of the same opinions) of those denouncing Obama's selection. But all and any of those arguments is rebutted by improved perception by the rest of the world.
The Nobel has been awarded in the past to others far less deserving for the same reasons.

You believe I am trying to "down" Obama; that's not my purpose... I may yet say he could be deserving of such an honor.

Not at all. But whether you like him or not, bestowing the Peace Prize on our President has improved our standing internationally, and that should be what we recognize and support. When or if he successfully performs deeds physically worthy of the prize, we can all truly celebrate.

[lightweight]

But whether you like him or not, bestowing the Peace Prize on our President has improved our standing internationally, and that should be what we recognize and support.

That is not really the point. The point is whether we think Obama deserves it, not whether the US status is improved internationally. Either way, no country's status relies on awards. Only on actions!

When or if he successfully performs deeds physically worthy of the prize, we can all truly celebrate.

What if he doesn't? (actually he hasn't up until now)

[henk4]

The point is whether we think Obama deserves it, not whether the US status is improved internationally.

That is a contorted way of putting things:
Obama deserves it (according to the Committe) BECAUSE the US position has improved internationally. With now a peaceful president at the helm, the prospects for world peace, have improved considerably. The Committee does not give a s..t whether WE (who are WE??) think that he deserves it, mainly because WE are NOT the Committee.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Could it be the Committee wanted to acknowledge his good works before he gets assassinated?

I'm not planning to do it I might add, but it's rare these days to see someone congratulated so early in their political life.

Please note the sarcasm.

[lightweight]

That is a contorted way of putting things:
Obama deserves it (according to the Committe) BECAUSE the US position has improved internationally.

According to the committee, the award was for promoting co-operation between DIFFERENT countries, not for strengthening his own.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release

With now a peaceful president at the helm, the prospects for world peace, have improved considerably.

How can you call a president peaceful whose army is in 2 other countries at the moment and he could increasing his presence there in terms of manpower?

As discussed extensively in this thread, you cannot award on prospects, but on actions.

[henk4]

According to the committee, the award was for promoting co-operation between DIFFERENT countries, not for strengthening his own.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - Press Release



How can you call a president peaceful whose army is in 2 other countries at the moment and he could increasing his presence there in terms of manpower?

As discussed extensively in this thread, you cannot award on prospects, but on actions.

Nowhere in the press release the word "different" is mentioned. I think you will also acknowledge that the US is the world number one super power. His approach is bringing this superpower more in line with what the Committee refers to as multilateral diplomacy. (in stead of unilateral violence, my words). That improves and strengthen his own position and that of the USA.
That he is still engaged in two wars outside his territory is rather not something that he wanted to do in the first place. It is the inheritance of his predecessor. One cannot solve the mess he (Bush) created by simply withdrawing all the troop and shutting off the light.

Perhaps it may help if we see the President of the USA as the representative of the nation and the people. By voting for Obama the US people may have indicated that they were ready for a regime change (from aggressive violence to considered diplomacy). Perhaps the Nobel Committee has taken this into account and the Prize should be seen as a reward for the US people as whole, represented by their President, for having finally seen the dead end street they had walked into, and in spite of all the hardcore Nobamas, O'Reillys and Hannitys which for so long have poisoning the mind of the US people.

And finally, I note that you have changed from "achievements" to "actions" as a criterion for awarding. We seem to be getting somewhere.

[lightweight]

Nowhere in the press release the word "different" is mentioned.

I wasn't quoting.

That he is still engaged in two wars outside his territory is rather not something that he wanted to do in the first place. It is the inheritance of his predecessor. One cannot solve the mess he (Bush) created by simply withdrawing all the troop and shutting off the light.

True, but you don't quietly increase your troops.

Obama quietly deploying 13,000 more US troops to Afghanistan | World news | guardian.co.uk

Perhaps the Nobel Committee has taken this into account and the Prize should be seen as a reward for the US people as whole, represented by their President, for having finally seen the dead end street they had walked into

This is pure speculation and personal opinion. In fact nothing in the official press release suggests such a proposition.

And finally, I note that you have changed from "achievements" to "actions" as a criterion for awarding. We seem to be getting somewhere.

Let's not play with words taken out of their context.

[my porsche]

So this thread is still going, huh?

[henk4]

So this thread is still going, huh?

any objections?

[jcp123]

So I guess what it comes down to is pure opinion...whether you choose to use the Nobel as "encouragement" to continue down a path, as the committee decided to do, or as an acknowledgement of achievements.

Unfortunately, which side you are on will come down to politics for most folks, which is a sad for such an otherwise glistening accolade. The Nobel should not come down to mere politics, and the committee should have known it would leave itself open to criticism for being partisan - or (dare I say it?) buying into Obama's cult of personality. Still, time will tell if the committee was premature, ahead of its time, or simply lovestruck. As I said all along, we'll just have to let history speak for itself.