Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize

[Volum]

I think those guys got the prize already

Mandela got it in 93 but Gandhi never got it, alltough the year after he died they didnt give one out because there was no living person worthy of the prize. (You have to alive to get it

Just to prove all of this is phoney, I will personally befriend the heads of the committee and win an prize while being a middle class white American.

Doubt it, Obama got it so the head of the nobel comitee with the great english and other important people in Norway would get to meet him. IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO GET HIM TO COME HERE We're not really that annoyed about him getting it anyways, i think were more annoyed he didn't stay longer.

 

[REDY]

You ought to read up on Alfred Nobel, lad.
Finally, there have been few times in my sinful life I am more ashamed of being a Norwegian than today.
Perhaps it is time for me to brush up my Swedish.

Hmm now I see, Nobel wished that.
Too many controverse prizes in history.

 

[onedreamer]

I think those guys got the prize already

I think you didn't understand my post.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't think either of them deserve it, but can anyone tell me the logic behind Obama getting it and Medvedev not getting it?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think either of them deserve it, but can anyone tell me the logic behind Obama getting it and Medvedev not getting it?

Obama is not Bush. Medvedev is not not Putin.

 

[Richard Cribb]

It's all very well and good to say that Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize, but who does? Morgan Tsvangirai? Zimbabwe is only a small corner of the world, and Thabo Mbeki had just as much to do with the creation of a largely unsuccessful deal there. Wei Jingsheng? If your judging the Prize by success instead of intentions, then surely he would not be deserved of the prize. And what peace has been achieved in the world in the last year? Nothing important that I can really think of. So we really do have to judge based on attempts to broker peace, rather than actual outcomes. And I think it's safe Barack Obama has been involved in more peace efforts than anyone else this year. Added to this the immense amount that him not being George W. Bush has done for America's image, and hence for world peace, and giving him the prize actually makes sense.

Iran. Israel-Palestine. Cuba. Conciliation with the Muslim world (the importance of which cannot be stressed enough). Improved relations around the world, including with China. Honduras. Improved climate change policy (which is a consideration in the Nobel Peace Prize). Willingness to negotiate with other nations like NK, and to have dialogue with nations like Venezuela. And then there's human rights things, which are surely a major consideration in the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, what major peace initiatives or other significant policies making the world more safe and secure have been undertaken that haven't involved Obama in some way?



But it wouldn't make all that much sense to not issue the award in the year in which the world would seem to have become a much safer and more conciliatory place, which has been achieved simply through Bush leaving office. There has not been a single standout peace initiative this year, but the world has become more secure, largely through Obama's diplomacy, as opposed to the previous administrations.

Oh, Jonathan Swift, where are you when we need you the most!

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I wasn't actually making an attempt at satire, but I'm sure you knew that.

Meh, I certainly don't think he is the most deserving winner ever, and I was quite perplexed by the award. But, I don't think it was an abomination, a travesty, or without grounds. The Peace Prize Committee does have good reason to award the Prize to Obama, although it is by no means the best reasoning behind the award ever. Surely it cannot be that bad for them to use the Prize to promote and encourage peace, more so than rewarding it?

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, I wasn't actually making an attempt at satire, but I'm sure you knew that.

Can't be sure of anything these days.

Meh, I certainly don't think he is the most deserving winner ever, and I was quite perplexed by the award. But, I don't think it was an abomination, a travesty, or without grounds. The Peace Prize Committee does have good reason to award the Prize to Obama, although it is by no means the best reasoning behind the award ever. Surely it cannot be that bad for them to use the Prize to promote and encourage peace, more so than rewarding it?[/QUOTE]
I do indeed think it is a travesty.
What the Nobel Peace Comitee promote, encourage and reward is a warmonger and an imperialist.
That he has more charm and intelligence than his predecessor, doesn't change that fact.
And yes they have their reasons. Those are only not good.

 

[Cutlass]

Kind of like giving the Rookie of the Year award out on the first day of the season?

Hey, in the original thread on the subject I said "wtf were they thinking?" I don't think it was the right choice by the Nobel committee. But as far as I can tell their reasoning was motivation.

Spoiler :

Or just, ya know, cause he's not Bush.

 

[onedreamer]

I don't think either of them deserve it, but can anyone tell me the logic behind Obama getting it and Medvedev not getting it?

Medvedev did not promise peace and planet care for the whole world. Obama has been awarded for his promises.

 

[Zarn]

If Obama doesn't deliver, do they take it back?

 

[amadeus]

After all, the Nobel committee has a long and distinguished history of giving it to famous warmongers:

Theodore Roosevelt
George Catlett Marshall
Henry A. Kissinger
Lê Ðức Thọ (refused)
Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat
Menachem Begin
Yitzhak Rabin
Shimon Peres

You missed three names: Gorbachev, Arafat, and Mandela.



The Church Street bombing in Pretoria killed 19 people and injured over 200, many of them civilians and many of them black civilians. The MK had also been responsible for bombings of hamburger stands, supermarkets, shopping malls, banks, and also landmines placed on civilian roads.

 

[Karalysia]

Collateral damage happens sometimes in the noble fight for freedom against oppression. It was for the greater good.

 

[onedreamer]

... said Genghis Khan.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You can safely ignore Ama's ranting about Mandela, he vehemently supported Apartheid, and generally all white rule in Africa.

 

[MobBoss]

Collateral damage happens sometimes in the noble fight for freedom against oppression. It was for the greater good.

Terrorist. Apologist.

Bombing a hamburger stand, or shopping center isnt 'fighting for freedom'....its terrorism and the casualties there are not collateral damage, they were the prime targets of the attack.

You utterly fail at defining what collateral damage even is if you think its people killed by bombing a hamburger stand.

 

[Karalysia]

Terrorist. Apologist.

Bombing a hamburger stand, or shopping center isnt 'fighting for freedom'....its terrorism and the casualties there are not collateral damage, they were the prime targets of the attack.

You utterly fail at defining what collateral damage even is if you think its people killed by bombing a hamburger stand.

When fighting a great evil people are sometimes compelled to resort to great evil themselves. Or do you consider the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo war crimes? Atomic bombs? The burning of Atlanta in the civil war?

Sometimes unpleasant things must be done. Surely you in the military should understand that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Terrorist. Apologist.

Isn't that your stupid argument for collateral damage in war, just turned around to defend a position you don't like? Have your cake and eat it too.

 

[MobBoss]

When fighting a great evil people are sometimes compelled to resort to great evil themselves.

So you believe that ends justify the means.

Or do you consider the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo war crimes? Atomic bombs? The burning of Atlanta in the civil war?

Legitimate targets/methods via the law of warfare at the time they occurred.

Sometimes unpleasant things must be done. Surely you in the military should understand that.

Of course I do, probably more than most here. But I do see a difference in specifically targeting civilians to kill them, and civilians being killed as collateral damage in destroying a ball bearing plant.

Isn't that your stupid argument for collateral damage in war, just turned around to defend a position you don't like? Have your cake and eat it too.

War isnt the same thing as terrorism.

 

[Karalysia]

So you believe that ends justify the means.

In particular instances yes. Was the civil war which cost 600,000 lives worth the end of slavery? Yes of course it was. Was the destruction of the Nazi's worth the tens of millions who died? Yes.

Was the destruction of the apartheid state worth the loss of some civilians? Yes.

Legitimate targets/methods via the law of warfare at the time they occurred.

War is just terrorism on a far grander scale. Legitimate targets? So you agree that atomic bombs and the firebombings which targeted civilians were legitimate targets right? Then surely you can't object to the ANC's methods.

Of course I do, probably more than most here. But I do see a difference in specifically targeting civilians to kill them, and civilians being killed as collateral damage in destroying a ball bearing plant.

In World War II civilians were targeted largely to break their will to fight.

So whats wrong with targeting civilians to break their will to continue supporting apartheid? Those civllians are complicit in the continuation of the apartheid regime.