An amazing turn of events, considering the not-so-secret low opinion in which the Nobel Prize Committe holds  USA persons re the Peace and Literature prizes.

Well, it's one more Nobel Peace Prize than  former POTUS Bush, Israeli PM Bibi or any Neo-Con has ever gotten. Or is likely ever to receive. Now, here's hoping that the POTUS can use this new-found and unexpected honor as a bludgeon with which to batter Bibi [figuratively speaking, only, of course] and  develop a more constructive US foreign policy in the Middle East.  We expect not likely in this quarter, sadly.

POTUS Obama was cited for “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”


The Nobel Prize Committe has realy fucked-up the weekend for a lot of regulars in this forum.


AND POTUS Obama has a Chia toy in his likeness as well!

-- Modified on 10/9/2009 4:39:40 AM

to demean the prize that other's so richly deserved (MLK). This the the Nobel committee trying to boost up his Presidency now that it is on the ropes.

In my memory, it is the only time I rememeber hearing ALL THE NETWORKS saying, great, he won the prize, now he has to earn it.

Actually, this is only confirmation of what I believe to be true for the No Bell piece prize committee - or for that matter others of the No Bell committees....

It is a sham.

Seriously, WHAT has Obama ACTUALLY accomplished? (other than being elected?)  Shall we run down the list???

1) Health care reform has met serious resistance - and will likely pass, but not on his terms.
2) Close the GITMO.... well, that is delayed...
3) outta Iraq... not yet...
4) Get Bin Laden... uh huh.... like that has happened.
5) Ease relations with Iran.... (right they are working their little tails off to "get the bomb" so they can exterminate a people)
6) decrease nuclear proliferation... Right!  Iran now feels free to develop the bomb.... and North Korea feels free to develop and test delivery missles.  what a great thing
7) Failure to meet with the Dhali Lama...
6) Failure to correct the lunacy that was spewed at the UN.

And soooo many other non-actions.... or no- success...

I am sure that you see this as a success, however,  I can only shake my head... the No Bell piece prize committee has one purpose and one purpose only, to embarass the US.  Witness the granting of the prize to J Carter... or Al Gore... two of the biggests nothings ever to grace the halls of our highest offices

he couldn't even get that done.  Sheese, I'll bet that if the guy sold his shit, you'ld buy it.

I think it is too funny.  Ironically, the gist of the award was the hope he inspires, not what he has accomplished so far. It's based on his  speeches.  

I won't put money on it, but I would guess this is not going to be a boost among the middle-ground independants.  We will see.

I've seen some asinine things in my life, but this takes the cake.

Don't you actually have to, I dunno, DO something to win the Nobel Peace Prize??

What, is this recognition for Obama's incredible feat of bringing a white cop and a black professor together for a beer? That's the closest Obama has come to brokering any sort of "peace" anywhere in the world.

Give me a BREAK.

I was thinking the same thing...so it was the beer fest on the White House lawn between his friend Skip and the racist cop from Cambridge Mass. that put him over the top!..Cudos to B.H.O!

What a guy. We are blessed to live in his time. Let us rejoice and give thanks.

I see it as being the Nobel Prize Committee's attempt at "Paying It Forward," hoping that what President Obama has verbalized and inspired hope for; working toward greater world peace and justice, will indeed come about. I don't think this would have happened though without the backdrop of Ex-president George W. Bush's implemented policies, and go it alone stance in the world. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it can be taken too far.

-- Modified on 10/9/2009 9:21:33 AM

I'm delighted.  The discontent with the selection will undoubtedly come from ignorant jackals (like the ones who posted above me) that haven't the slightest clue about the Nobel Peace Prize and what it entails.  A glance at past winners might be beneficial for them - if they were interested in anything more than discrediting the President that is.  How fucking predictable.

you're-a-peeing way... You have to actually only be an embaressment and apologist and wish to actually dismantle the US.  That is exactly how AL Gore and J Carter got the no bell prize.

In the past, the no bell awards have consistantly been an embarassment to anyone who actually accomplishes things... and every now and then, they screw up, and appoint someone who deserves the prize as a winner... but for the most part, it is an idealized version of "Feel Good" rather than actually accomplish good...

As I say, in 1938-9 they would rather promote containment of Nazi Germany as opposed to eridicating the concepts put forward by Hitler..  "peace in our time"

Appeasement works where? Bullies in the playground?  Madmen in the world?  WHere - no where.... it just never works, psychopaths and sociopaths see that as a sign of weakness, rather than accomodation.

IF, PBHO had actually accomplished ANY of the items I listed, there would be an accomplishment.  he is being rewarded ONLY for SAYING what he "Wants" to do and not what he has actually done.  

ALL of the previous winners - DID something prior to winning the prize.... heck, even Al GORE has managed to convince folks (with faulty data and analysis) that we are doomed due to global warming... and get an agenda pushed forward and a scheme developed to rob western societies to pay off the third world.... while all the time permitting the same or even more CO2 emissions.... yea... you can get rewarded for making things worse and NOT better.... but as I say, at least good ole al has an accomplishment.

Give me one task that PBHO has completed.

This is all based on what OSLO “hopes” Mr. Obama is able to accomplish, and not based on anything that he has accomplished. It is just more of the “hope and change” that has been Mr. Obama’s theme.  Mr. Obama’s nomination was made on February 1, 2009.  It is all based on what the committee hopes is a change of direction in our foreign policy.  It is billed as a decision made to “build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.”  The committee stated “their choice could be seen as a vote of confidence”.  I believe the best words used thus far are: “in a stunning decision”.  Even Mr. Obama has stated that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize”.  It is plain to me that the NPC has moved away from the real meaning behind this award and have chosen to use this as a chance to “promote” rather than “honor” someone’s accomplishments.    

As of yet, Mr. Obama has inspired, but has not delivered.  I know...it’s still too early, and there is so much to be done.  And I know...he has to deal with so much crap left over from the “Bush years” and IMO there is plenty to be had.  And of course I know...it’s all because the GOP is not cooperating.  I just “hope” this story doesn’t consume the media with more love and admiration for our POTUS, but that they all continue to focus on the real issues that confront us all.

Are you really making a reference to a sarcastic pile of bullshit that was your list, and asking me to concede based on that?   Get the fuck out of here "dude."  If you're citing the Olympics, the logistical reasons for which we're still in Iraq, and the incomplete process of closing GITMO as reasons why he didn't deserve the prize, then you're one of the ignorant fucking jackals that I was referring to who have no idea what ANY of the Nobel prizes entail.  It's like some dumbass high school dropout who can barely find a light switch heckling the recipient of an IEEE award.  

-- Modified on 10/9/2009 10:35:50 AM

and humanity.  All you have to do is look at what has happened SINCE obama took office... it is quite the opposite of what Obama has stated he wants...

as to the statment "build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism"

we see, in the world, a true effort to BUILD nuclear arms... Increased rhetoric from madmen such as ahmadinejad and qaddafi.  As to coooperation, we now see the withdrawal of several of our allies from the theaters of terrorist engagement... forcing us to "go it alone" or quit the fight.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but if history teaches anything, it teaches that it repeats itself... and guess what - appeasement never works. ever. when confronting mad men.

And what exactly is the "real meaning behind this award?"

Mr. OBAMA  has only been in office for about 10 months. No one, no one, could accomplish most of the items on your list in that time. So you are setting up a fictious standard and using that to justify your criticism.

     He was awarded the prize because of his "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy," his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and for inspiring hope and creating "a new climate in international politics."

I'd say those are some pretty important accomplishments for ten months in office. If he can do this much in so little time, imagine what he will accomplish over the next seven years.

-- Modified on 10/9/2009 10:34:48 AM

I agree with you Biz.  History shows that appeasements have never worked when confronting mad men.  Nothing has been done to reduce the nuclear threat around the world.  As far as easing tension with the Muslim world...What has been done?  IMO those tensions are even more heightened.  Stress diplomacy and cooperation...meaningless if you are negotiating with terrorists states that are not listening to what you have to say but proliferating their nuclear ambitions in spite of what you have to say.  

We'll see what history has to say 4 years from now in reviewing what has actually been accomplished.

ahmadinejad and kadaffi, so say nothing of the North Koreans, the world is a lot more dangerous.

Look at the specticle of the UN recently.... what a rediculous cast of looneys who went largely unchallenged.

Bullys only see appeasement as weakness.

Gee zorff...are you really asking me to go to the Nobel site and look it up for you???  You stated previously that: “The discontent with the selection will undoubtedly come from ignorant jackals (like the ones who posted above me) that haven't the slightest clue about the Nobel Peace Prize and what it entails.   I’m sorry that I assumed that you were well aware of the “true meaning” behind to whom this award has been given.

The Peace Prize should be awarded "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."  What exactly has Mr. Obama accomplished in this regard?  Or are his speeches considered “the best work”?

The operative word "should" gives them the choice to award the prize to whomever they chose.  But the meaning behind the award is to honor accomplishments or efforts...not "hopes and dreams".

Exactly.  As outlined by Nobel himself "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work."  Never has completion of goals been a requirement to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, as you and your predictable band of Obama critics would imply in this thread.  WORK is the operative word here.  WORK.  You quote Nobel's will, and then go on to argue against the criteria for the prize.  Wtf?  Do you realize that you had an argument with yourself in your own thread?  

It appears that your beef here is with Nobel.  Unfortunately, it's a bit too late for that, because he's dead.  I'd suggest holding a seance to present your meritless argument - though I'm not sure you'd be able to change his mind.

and seeing President Carter and Vice President Gore on the list is enough to tell me that this award was turned into a joke years ago.

Next thing you know, Michael Moore will win it!!!!

Don't give me awards and "hope."  Give me a safe country, with leadership that makes decisions instead of apologies.

A man who accomplishes, who risks life and limb.   A man who truly brings hope to those without the means to help themselves...

who already has delivered.

I would want my kids to meet this man.... over the Harvard educated Obama... any day.

I did not, he was some members of congress's choice.  Go figure... even the likes of Nancy pelosi et al, recognize quality when they see it.

making speeches.


Even BHO agrees with me.

What has he done but given speeches?  And I have no beef...as I said before they may give this award to anyone they chose.  This award became meaningless to me when Mr. Carter received it and became ridiculous when Mr. Gore received it.  I could care less that Mr. Obama was presented with the award.  However, I do have to admit that I admire his graciousness in his comments this morning.

But as my original post stated, they can give the award to whomever they chose.  That's an indication that "best work" and "done the most" can be trumped by great speeches.  But my point still stands that he has not done anything to merit this award in it’s original concept.

OK, so now we've moved on from the accomplishments thing.  Your language has changed now, and you're questioning what WORK the President has done.  I'll accept that concession.  All he does is make speeches.  

But uhhh, What the FUCK else President supposed to do???  You broker peace by talking.  You repair broken ties with formerly alienated allies by talking.  You restore the broken reputation of the United States by talking.  You encourage difficult countries like Russia and China to participate in efforts to curb nuclear proliferation by talking.  You make it known to the world that the US isn't COMPLETELY occupied by ignorant, xenophobic, Muslim-hating morons who would prefer to isolate themselves from the rest of world by talking.  You inspire the governed to call for a change in their oppressive government by talking.  You remove a terrorist's groups stranglehold on a populous by talking.  You re-engage the UN by talking.  You shape major legislation that changes the way healhtcare is applied to an entire country by talking.  Small shit, I know.  I think I see your point.  Standing up on the world stage and saying stuff that people actually listen to and act on is the biggest sham since speeches were invented.  

If you think communicating for these type of results isn't notable, then you're terribly out of touch with the way the world operates.  It probably doesn't make much of a difference in your DSL-equipped cave, but out here it's a big deal.

President Obama won the Nobel Prize. Many here of the view that, if I hate this person so everyone else who likes this person is wrong. Unfortunately for you, the world doesn't work that way. The key word in President Obama Foreign Policy is "mutual respect and mutual interest", why? Every nation on the face of the earth has their on interest just like us. This is the reason, the president is able to bring people together.

Since, he took office; he had very productive conversations with every leader of every nation and all are working together to solve significant problems.

Even Ahmedinijad was pleased with the price and congratulated President Obama.

According to the press reports Taliban, and Republicans are the only one's opposed. That tells who Republicans really support.

Go suck an Egg.

Go to Nobel site and look through past winners.

Tells you how much you know. You just like to spew crap.

-- Modified on 10/9/2009 4:15:47 PM

after THAT one!

Can you name anything that does more to promote peace than not starting a war? The single most important decision we vest in that office is the war making decision and the post war "darn, I guess we were wrong" doesn't do it. Making the right decision here is the "best work" any man can do.

     If you find no value in his articulation of a vision coupled with his exacting scrutiny over whether to send more troops to the conflict he inherited, you should at least give him credit for that.

Yeah, giving speeches is such lame bullshit.  Who does that?

Well ok then, lets hear it. What has he actually DONE that merits a Nobel Peace Prize?

Please be specific.

I’m sorry zorff... I can only read what you wrote and shake my head and chuckle.  If you really believe what you wrote is actually “work in progress”, I’m happy for you.  We obviously see things from completely different perspectives.  I could go point be point, but to what end?

The topic of conversation was Mr. Obama winning the Nobel Prize.  You obviously feel that he “deserves” the award and want to make this about how wonderful of a job you perceive he is doing.  And how horrible anyone is that disagrees with you.  I, like my President, believe that the award was not “deserved” at this point.  It was an award given as a “vote of confidence” in what Mr. Obama has said in his speeches.  And it is the committee’s right to give it to whomever for whatever reason they should so chose.  But please don’t look at this as an award being given for “a job well done”.  The jury is still out on how well he will be able to deliver on what he hopes to accomplish.  

Kudos to Mr. Obama for pledging that he will be donating the 1.4 million to charity.

Iran has vowed anew to exterminate israel...

North Korea tested missles capable of delivering the a-bomb.

Kadaffi - welcomes a convicted terrorist and embarasses those who showed compasion.

and the list goes on.  

while I suck on the egg.... these folks gain strength, and are emboldened by our president who proudly proclaims that if another terrorist attack occurs, he will, in point of fact, do nothing.  If fact, he has vowed that he will dismantle the intelligence system that has kept us safe...

right, got every one together... that's a good un.

You can't have it both ways...if it's a "meaningless" and "ridiculous" prize as you characterized it, then why is he not "deserving" of it?

well, he has united a significant portion of this fractious community aginst him.  That counts for something.

Peace is the presence of freedom and justice and the absence of evil.

I don't get it!  I like the guy, but I just don't see what his contributions to world peace have been.

Jimmy Carter?  OK, he brought Egypt and Israel together.  But Obama?

All I can say is that the list of potential recipients had to be pretty lame this year.

Although the one good thing is that it's going to silence the Fox News talking heads that have been claiming that Obama's popularity in Europe is declining! Hell, he's the Jerry Lewis of Sweden!

What a joke . Obama has not accomplished any of the lofty goals that the Nobel Peace prize committee wants done yet
They should have watched that SNL skit that had Obamesiah pegged right because he ain't done nothing he has said he would do so far .

Roman Polanski to head up UNICEF

I understand that reading through an entire thread AND responding to your own posts can be mentally taxing for someone like you...but the key is to pick which one you're going to do.  I'd suggest the one that makes you look like less of a jackass next time.

When used in reference to the relationship between nations


Peace
1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.

Freedom, justice, and evil are all relative terms that cannot be quantified.  War is pretty easy to identify, don;'t you think. And throughout history war between two countries that provided roughly equal degrees of freedom and justice to their people is fairly common.

The Soviet Union was at peace and a peaceful place to live. The same for Communist China throughout most of its years.

I do appreciate your naiveté though.

BTW, It’s so typical of you to cherry pick your “evidence”. You should have edited the numeral 1. from your cut and paste and I might not have been motivated. Here’s the rest of your source. Not quite as simple as you’d hoped for, eh?


peace  /pis/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [pees]  Show IPA noun, interjection, verb, peaced, peac⋅ing.
–noun
1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
2. (often initial capital letter) an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups, etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism: the Peace of Ryswick.  
3. a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, esp. in personal relations: Try to live in peace with your neighbors.  
4. the normal freedom from civil commotion and violence of a community; public order and security: He was arrested for being drunk and disturbing the peace.  
5. cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension.
6. freedom of the mind from annoyance, distraction, anxiety, an obsession, etc.; tranquillity; serenity.
7. a state of tranquillity or serenity: May he rest in peace.  
8. a state or condition conducive to, proceeding from, or characterized by tranquillity: the peace of a mountain resort.  
9. silence; stillness: The cawing of a crow broke the afternoon's peace.  
10. (initial capital letter, italics) a comedy (421 b.c.) by Aristophanes.

–interjection
11. (used to express greeting or farewell or to request quietness or silence).

–verb (used without object)
12. Obsolete. to be or become silent.

—Idioms
13. at peace, a. in a state or relationship of nonbelligerence or concord; not at war.
b. untroubled; tranquil; content.
c. deceased.
14. hold or keep one's peace, to refrain from or cease speaking; keep silent: He told her to hold her peace until he had finished.  
15. keep the peace, to maintain order; cause to refrain from creating a disturbance: Several officers of the law were on hand to keep the peace.  
16. make one's peace with, to become reconciled with: He repaired the fence he had broken and made his peace with the neighbor on whose property it stood.  
17. make peace, to ask for or arrange a cessation of hostilities or antagonism.

I fear you are overmatched.

      As to the other nine definitions, did you somehow fail to read the first sentence of the post:

"When used in reference to the relationship between nations"

to explain why I chose that definition as the only one applicable to my post? So internal dissension is not too relevant in the specified context, is it?

       Somehow I don't think what is disturbed by the cawing of a crow is relevant to this discussion either, do you? And while I suspect the harmony between you and your neighbors may not be so great if they don't Fox News, that one is misplaced as well.

      Don't see "justice or "evil" anywhere either but I will give you "freedom" in Number 6

6. freedom of the mind from annoyance, distraction, anxiety, an obsession, etc.; tranquillity; serenity

if for no other reason than that your post disturbed mine.

RWU doesn't read very well.  I wouldn't spend anymore time on this if I were you.  It's hard to teach someone to read without actually being there.

Attempting to change the rules of the debate. It’s what you do. It’s who you are.

Your original question was not at all so exclusively minded as you would now attempt to restrict matters. . .

“Can you name anything that does more to promote peace than not starting a war?”

I gave concrete examples of “some things” (presence of freedom and justice and the absence of evil), but they didn’t fit your mindset thus you must ignore them.

I always thought you were big on “justice” and the “absence of evil”. Your disregard for “freedom” is not surprising though.

Now get back to your assignment and make that list.

most recipients in the past use to actually achieve great accomplishments. Now it has turned into a "what you may do in the future award"

The sad thing is the peace prize turned political a long time ago. Kind of like the term "Racist", it just has no real maining anymore.

It's a shame because some of the past recipients were VERY deserving. Now those awards have been diminshed. The GASPS which arose in teh room when the award was announed was enough to let anyone know how inappropriate this award was.