Author Topic: President Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize (Read 7477 times)

tyrionlannister · « **on:** October 09, 2009, 08:29:24 AM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_7

I find it ironic that the leader of a country which is engaged in the largest 2 ongoing armed conflicts in the world has been given this prize.
So far, he has only extended the deadline fow withdrawing from Iraq, and is thinking about sending more troops in Afghanistan.
I think it proves that the Nobel Peace Prize is now a joke, or maybe it's always been so.
What do you think?

relic2279 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2009, 08:46:05 AM »

Quote

I find it ironic that the leader of a country which is engaged in the largest 2 ongoing armed conflicts in the world has been given this prize.

While I don't know if he deserves it, probably doesn't, but who were the other lead candidates? Though to correct you, he didn't start the wars. He inherited them. One of which is a NATO mission, not an American war.

Quote

So far, he has only extended the deadline fow withdrawing from Iraq, and is thinking about sending more troops in Afghanistan.

He wants to pull more troops out of Iraq, and relocate/put a smaller amount in Afghanistan. It's funny because people think Iraq and Afghanistan are similar wars.
Afghanistan is a NATO mission which means countries from NATO also have troops there. They do not have troops in Iraq unless they are also part of the coalition of the willing. Obama pulling troops out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan eases the burden on NATO countries. Not entirely sure why the rest of the world would complain about that.

But as far as "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." goes, which is why he won according the the article,

He did negotiate with Iran to get hostages released (as opposed to bombing them), sent Bubba Clinton to NK for the same reason and isn't ignoring China and Japan like Bush did. The first place he sent his secretary of state (hillary) back in Feb, was Japan and the rest of Asia. He also did away with the big stick foreign policy that Bush held. Are they great accomplishments in comparison to bush? Yes. Are the competitive for the Nobel Peace prize? I don't know. I don't know the competition.

darkjedi · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2009, 08:57:35 AM »

Obama > Bush

When it comes to Iran/China/North Korea.

In fact, I think he handles them better than any other politicians except maybe Putin or Medevev, but they are Russians.

Aside from that, I see no reason why he should receive the Peace prize for this year.

tyrionlannister · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:12:08 AM »

Quote from: relic2279 on October 09, 2009, 08:46:05 AM

Quote
I find it ironic that the leader of a country which is engaged in the largest 2 ongoing armed conflicts in the world has been given this prize.

While I don't know if he deserves it, probably doesn't, but who were the other lead candidates? Though to correct you, he didn't start the wars. He inherited them. One of which is a NATO mission, not an American war.

Quote
So far, he has only extended the deadline fow withdrawing from Iraq, and is thinking about sending more troops in Afghanistan.

He wants to pull more troops out of Iraq, and relocate/put a smaller amount in Afghanistan. It's funny because people think Iraq and Afghanistan are similar wars.
Afghanistan is a NATO mission which means countries from NATO also have troops there. They do not have troops in Iraq unless they are also part of the coalition of the willing. Obama pulling troops out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan eases the burden on NATO countries. Not entirely sure why the rest of the world would complain about that.

But as far as "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." goes, which is why he won according the the article,

He did negotiate with Iran to get hostages released (as opposed to bombing them), sent Bubba Clinton to NK for the same reason and isn't ignoring China and Japan like Bush did. The first place he sent his secretary of state (hillary) back in Feb, was Japan and the rest of Asia. He also did away with the big stick foreign policy that Bush held. Are they great accomplishments in comparison to bush? Yes. Are the competitive for the Nobel Peace prize? I don't know. I don't know the competition.

Read my post again, I said that he's involved in these conflicts, not that he started it.
Do you really think that NATO would have gone to Afghanistan if the US hadn't pushed it? Also, I think it's pretty clear to anyone that the US calls the shots in NATO, it's not like they (NATO) could ever go against the wishes of the USA.

In my view, anyone who wants to extend a war is not qualified to receive a prize for peace, since war=reverse of peace. If Obama would have said: okay, we want to withdraw next month from both Afghanistan and Iraq and he did it, then yeah you could say he would be eligible for the prize.

Also, less of a year of actual work hardly qualifies him. For all you know, he could start a new war with Iran or N. Korea. To take things into perspective, Nelson Mandella won the prize years after he stepped down from being President of S. Africa.

erious · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:13:04 AM »

I just heard this on the news and couldn't stop laughing at first - it was so ridiculous. Giving him Nobel Prize now is like slapping the previous recipients in the face. He didn't do enough yet to deserve it.
Now, don't get me wrong - despite not being from the states, I kind of like Obama - for a politician he's not that bad. But this situation is just silly.

darkjedi · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:17:35 AM »

Quote from: tyrionlannister on October 09, 2009, 09:12:08 AM

it's not like they (NATO) could ever go against the wishes of the USA.

Yes, it could.

Talk about attacking Iran right now; do you think they'll agree?

I dunno about the French and British nutheads but Eastern Europe countries like Poland, Greece and Turkey, not a chance.

relic2279 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:20:12 AM »

Quote from: tyrionlannister on October 09, 2009, 09:12:08 AM

Read my post again, I said that he's involved in these conflicts, not that he started it.

So you're implying that it disqualifies him? I don't understand your logic.

Quote

In my view, anyone who wants to extend a war is not qualified to receive a prize for peace,

Cool... Only it's not a war. It's an occupation. The enemies are called 'insurgents' for a reason.

Quote

it was so ridiculous. Giving him Nobel Prize now is like slapping the previous recipients in the face

What/who was his competition? I don't have any links. As far as living up to their definition of "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" he did that, as I previously stated, but I'm thinking someone else did more.

darkjedi · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:24:21 AM »

Quote from: relic2279 on October 09, 2009, 09:20:12 AM

but I'm thinking someone else did more.

The Chinese and Taiwanese did.

Seriously.

lx4 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:27:58 AM »

What the fuck? I stopped taking the Nobel peace price seriously a long time ago but still this is ridiculous... I like Obama but he hasnt done anything yet. How can he get the peace price when he hasnt done anything big for world peace. If he convinces Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program then give him the price, if he is successful in resurrecting the Israel-Arab peace process then give him the price. He cant take credit for fixing Iraq, he is in the process of trying to fix Afghanistan but he has done that yet. There is no reason to give him the price.

relic2279 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:29:45 AM »

Quote from: lx4 on October 09, 2009, 09:27:58 AM

What the fuck? I stoped taking the Nobel peace price seriously a long time ago but still this is ridiculous...

And that's my question. Who are were the/his competitors and what did they do? Why can't anyone answer that? Instead lets blindly rage that he didn't bring peace to the middle east.

lx4 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:32:49 AM »

From what I have read (and I just woke up) the predicted winners were either Zimbabwes PM for trying to take that poor country out of the grip of Mugabe and a Chinese dissident.

relic2279 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:36:46 AM »

Neither of those two were particular successful, though Obama was. Were they more ideological? Sure. But this isn't the Nobel Ideological prize.

darkjedi · « **Reply #12 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:38:47 AM »

As a side note,

Why isn't there a Nobel War Prize?

zherok · « **Reply #13 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:39:03 AM »

Nomination records are sealed for 50 years.

http://nobelprize.org/contact/faq/index.html#nominations

By the time we know all the details I doubt any of us will care.

tyrionlannister · « **Reply #14 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:45:17 AM »

Quote from: relic2279 on October 09, 2009, 09:20:12 AM

Quote from: tyrionlannister on October 09, 2009, 09:12:08 AM
Read my post again, I said that he's involved in these conflicts, not that he started it.

So you're implying that it disqualifies him? I don't understand your logic.

Quote
In my view, anyone who wants to extend a war is not qualified to receive a prize for peace,

Cool... Only it's not a war. It's an occupation. The enemies are called 'insurgents' for a reason.

Quote
it was so ridiculous. Giving him Nobel Prize now is like slapping the previous recipients in the face
What/who was his competition? I don't have any links. As far as living up to their definition of "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" he did that, as I previously stated, but I'm thinking someone else did more.

So how about the war in Iraq, is that a war or is that an occupation of a sovereign state?

My point is that Obama may not have started the conflicts, but he has chosen to continue them, regardless of how they are officially titled: war, occupation etc. Btw, what about "the War on Terror", is that a war in your view or is it something else?

Regardless of who the competition was, I think they could have found someone who is not involved in armed conflict.

darkjedi · « **Reply #15 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:46:31 AM »

Um, someone like Queen Elizabeth maybe...

lx4 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:52:07 AM »

Quote from: darkjedi on October 09, 2009, 09:38:47 AM

As a side note,

Why isn't there a Nobel War Prize?

If there was such a price maybe Nobel would have won it himself. He made his huge fortune developing explosives, the price was his way of making amends for that.

kurandoinu · « **Reply #17 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:59:13 AM »

Quote from: darkjedi on October 09, 2009, 09:46:31 AM

Um, someone like Queen Elizabeth maybe...

The Queen does nothing anyway. So why would she care?

darkjedi · « **Reply #18 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:06:10 AM »

Well, at least she's not involved in any armed conflicts.

lx4 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:13:11 AM »

The only thing Queen Elizabeth has done that I can think of was her strong opposition to the American invasion of "her island" Grenada, but that was a while ago.