Obama and the Prize

Makeuptalk.com forums

Help Support Makeuptalk.com forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
328
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Let's get this party started.
smile.gif


Everyone in the world knows that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here's a few questions for you all regarding that:

  1. The US Commander in Afghanistan has asked President Obama for as much as 45,000 extra troops to properly fight that war. Do you think the peace prize award has anything to do with Obama being right in the middle of deciding to send those troops to Afghanistan?
  2. If you do, do you think those who award those peace prizes are trying to "strong" arm him?
  3. What, do you think President Obama has actually done (compared to others), to win that peace prize?
 
Obama had originally campaigned on the premise that the US presence in Iraq was a huge mistake and that the US had taken it's eye off of the prize (Afghanistan).

and in this regard he was totally correct, the previous administration was "distracted" by Iraq and let Afghanistan languish and put almost solely in the hands of Canada. Whether he sends more troops remain to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think the Karzai request will mean as much as the word of his generals.

I don't know that the Peace Prize was preemptive as you suggest Tony. I think this goes more to the entire sense that everyone has that the US will have improved international relations. There is certainly improved efforts with diplomacy that we have seen some evidence of with North Korea.

Was Obama the most worthy candidate for the Peace Prize? If the award was premature or unwarranted who would have gotten the prize? I think we might just have to sit and wait to see what happens.

 
I believe the President has already made it clear that his intentions are to increase troops in Afghanistan and is the core reason why Al-Quaeda released their messages denouncing the President the day after 911. The President has opened the doors and made many promises of hope in many areas including a real chance for change around the world. His only mistakes so far were in giving any form of time frame in the beginning at which I believe he is learning that in order to work in a bipartisan manner, everything takes time to mature but through patience and perseverances, they will all come to fruit with time. I believe the prize was well placed but again, I will give him the same time he needs that the former President had and failed miserably with. At least this time there is hope.

 
Except for pulling troops out of Bagdad... Not out of Iraq... Just pulled bag out into the desert somewhere... And some talk I can't see he's done anything... Personally I think they gave it to him in hope he will do something kind of like paying it forward? And I think in my eyes I cheapened the whole Nobel Award concept.. The inventor of high explosives, Alfred, is probably ready to blow himself up?

 
I will say that the President has much more patience than the last former President. The last President did not care about the people's nor the worlds wishes and simply did whatever popped into his head with executive orders. There was zero bipartisanship. That the President is actually listening to his Generals instead of using the, "I'm the boss", attitude is very good. All things will transpire with time. Most of them anyways.

 
Controversy surrounding the Nobel Peace prize is not without precedent.

Mikhail Gorbachev won the prize in the 1990s for his efforts to open up the Soviet Union (now mostly Russia) to the west in his spirit of glasnost. This was seen as a stroke to the Soviet ego in that time as those initial steps were very limited prior to his receiving the Nobel prize.

Yasser Arafat won the award (jointly with Israeli leaders) in 1994 for their efforts and many said that was unwarranted as well.

In Obama's own words: Obama said he did not feel he deserved "to be in the company" of past Peace Prize winners, but would accept the prize while pushing for a broad range of international objectives, including nuclear nonproliferation, a reversal of the global economic downturn and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The award was clearly unanimous by the Nobel committee so I go back to my question if Obama was not worthy who should have gotten it?

 
I still believe it was way too premature for him to receive that award. Im not sure what they were thinking when they decided to nominate him.

 
I can't think of anyone that stands out.. But then again I'm not up on world peace efforts.. (Little Miss America wave for fitting world peace into a post!
smile.gif
). Maybe it was just a slow news year for peace...

Wait. How about Kim Jong Il? For not attacking anyone yet?

 
This is Awesome!

The Peace (Keepers) Prize

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: October 10, 2009

The Nobel committee did President Obama no favors by prematurely awarding him its peace prize. As he himself acknowledged, he has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award — and it dismays me that the most important prize in the world has been devalued in this way.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

It is not the president’s fault, though, that the Europeans are so relieved at his style of leadership, in contrast to that of his predecessor, that they want to do all they can to validate and encourage it. I thought the president showed great grace in accepting the prize not for himself but “as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.”

All that said, I hope Mr. Obama will take this instinct a step further when he travels to Oslo on Dec. 10 for the peace prize ceremony. Here is the speech I hope he will give:

“Let me begin by thanking the Nobel committee for awarding me this prize, the highest award to which any statesman can aspire. As I said on the day it was announced, ‘I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.’ Therefore, upon reflection, I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all.

“But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century — the men and women of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American airmen who in June 1948 broke the Soviet blockade of Berlin with an airlift of food and fuel so that West Berliners could continue to live free. I will accept this award on behalf of the tens of thousands of American soldiers who protected Europe from Communist dictatorship throughout the 50 years of the cold war.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who stand guard today at outposts in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan to give that country, and particularly its women and girls, a chance to live a decent life free from the Taliban’s religious totalitarianism.



“I will accept this award on behalf of the American men and women who are still on patrol today in Iraq, helping to protect Baghdad’s fledgling government as it tries to organize the rarest of things in that country and that region — another free and fair election.

“I will accept this award on behalf of the thousands of American soldiers who today help protect a free and Democratic South Korea from an unfree and Communist North Korea.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the American men and women soldiers who have gone on repeated humanitarian rescue missions after earthquakes and floods from the mountains of Pakistan to the coasts of Indonesia. I will accept this award on behalf of American soldiers who serve in the peacekeeping force in the Sinai desert that has kept relations between Egypt and Israel stable ever since the Camp David treaty was signed.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the American airmen and sailors today who keep the sea lanes open and free in the Pacific and Atlantic so world trade can flow unhindered between nations.

“Finally, I will accept this award on behalf of my grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who arrived at Normandy six weeks after D-Day, and on behalf of my great-uncle, Charlie Payne, who was among those soldiers who liberated part of the Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald.

“Members of the Nobel committee, I accept this award on behalf of all these American men and women soldiers, past and present, because I know — and I want you to know — that there is no peace without peacekeepers.

“Until the words of Isaiah are made true and lasting — and nations never again lift up swords against nations and never learn war anymore — we will need peacekeepers. Lord knows, ours are not perfect, and I have already moved to remedy inexcusable excesses we’ve perpetrated in the war on terrorism.

“But have no doubt, those are the exception. If you want to see the true essence of America, visit any U.S. military outpost in Iraq or Afghanistan. You will meet young men and women of every race and religion who work together as one, far from their families, motivated chiefly by their mission to keep the peace and expand the borders of freedom.

“So for all these reasons — and so you understand that I will never hesitate to call on American soldiers where necessary to take the field against the enemies of peace, tolerance and liberty — I accept this peace prize on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. military: the world’s most important peacekeepers.”



 
Anyone that had enough balls to come in and clean up Bush's many messes deserves something....

Anyway here's the Nobel Jury's response to the republicans whining, lol:

OSLO – Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president.

Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.

Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment.

"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done."

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe.

He said most world leaders were positive about the award and that most of the criticism was coming from the media and from Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Obama was without merit.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said by phone from the western coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the peace prize decision. That's fine."

In Friday's announcement, the committee said giving Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

The left-leaning committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

However, the decision stunned even the most seasoned Nobel watchers. They hadn't expected Obama, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

The award drew heated derision from Obama's political opponents in the Republican party, and was even questioned by some members of Obama's own Democratic party, who wondered what the president had done to merit the $1.4 million honor.

Michael S. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said naming Obama showed "how meaningless a once honorable and respected award has become."

In a fundraising letter, Steele wrote that "the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way."

Columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times that Obama "has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award."

Even in Europe, where Obama is hugely popular, many editorials and pundits questioned what he had done to deserve the award.

"Scrap the Nobel Peace Prize," foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox wrote in The Times of London. "It's an embarrassment and even an impediment to peace. President Obama, in letting the committee award it to him, has made himself look vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique."

Yet Obama was humble in acknowledging the prize.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," Obama said Friday in the White House Rose Garden. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

Nobel Committee member Inger-Marie Ytterhorn noted that the president didn't greet the news with joy.

"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told AP.

Some of the most celebrated peace prize laureates include Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. The award has occasionally honored more controversial figures, like the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Sometimes it raises the profile of peace workers or activists, such as Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala in 1992 or Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai in 2004.

"Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it," said Ytterhorn, a nine-year veteran of the award committee.

Asked whether there was a risk that the prize could backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and give ammunition to his critics, Ytterhorn said "it might hamper him," because it could distract from domestic issues such as health care reform.

Jagland said he didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize would hurt Obama domestically but added the committee did not take U.S. politics into consideration when making their decision.

"I'm not so familiar with American politics, and I don't want to interfere with it, because this is a totally independent committee," he said. "We should not look at internal politics."

Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member, said "we all expected that there would be a discussion" about awarding Obama. She declined further comment, deferring to the Nobel Peace Prize tradition of only having the committee chairman discuss prize selections publicly.

Valle, who left her seat in Parliament last week because of her Nobel panel appointment, said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by the prize.

"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on the prize, on giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."

___

Ritter reported from Stockholm.

AP Newsbreak: Nobel jury defends Obama decision - Yahoo! News

 
hmm... i don't know about this one. he's a great guy and everything, but to be honest anyone that keeps the troops in Afghanistan, or even sends in more, is less peace-keeping, more war-mongering in my opinion. yes, there's a war going on over there, he's not helping it by sending out more military. we need to get those troops home and let that country rebuild and get over the mess our countries made of it.

 
LOL, I love how Olso think they have to defend the decision. Pretty much says something right there. Seems as if Oslo has given the award "Hoping" that Obama does good things. Oh oh....There's that word again, hope.

It's kinda like giving a star rookie pro football player a gigantic cash signing bonus, prior to his professional career greatness. Oh, hang-on, that athlete proved himself prior years playing football as a great athlete in college/high school and that's why he can be foreseen to be great.
wink.gif


Obama better get on the stick before the midterm elections, they are coming up fast.

 
The american president obama is the person who is the elected for the world,s biggest nobel prize.

 
Anyone that had enough balls to come in and clean up Bush's many messes deserves something

Exactly! Amen!

 
Back
Top