Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

[arildno]

Barack Obama has won the Nobel Prize for 2009.

First off, congratulations to USA and President Obama.

Secondly, as a Norwegian, I am deeply worried about how this will affect the credibility and status of the Nobel prize as such:

While Mr. Obama certainly has displayed a willingness, and ambition, to make the world a more peaceful place, I think it was far too early to award him the prize this year.

Clearly, the Nobel commitee is determined to award it to him in order to give his peaceful efforts an extra push.

But, this can easily backfire, as an ill-judged, hasty decision that will reduce the Prize into a matter of international irrelevance.

A risky move, IMO

[Vanadium 50]

Compared to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho - how bad can it get?

I do agree that it is risky. A lot can happen between now and the end of his term. One could argue that it was more about, to use your words, willingness and ambition, than concrete tangible results. On the other hand, everything may work out well and it may appear prescient.

[EL]

Secondly, as a Norwegian, I am deeply worried about how this will affect the credibility and status of the Nobel prize as such:

Thirdly, as a Swede, I am deeply worried about the populistic manner in which the Norwegian committee is handing out the peace prize.

Ok, this is not as bad as in 2007 and, especially, 1994 (!), but seriously, this threatens to spill over and damage the reputations of the "true" prizes. I thought the prize was supposed to be given out for something which had happened, and not what will possibly happen. This is like giving the physics prize to Peter Higgs.

(Don't get me wrong, I really like Obama.)

[Monique]

The first thing I thought as well was "that's fast".

[qspeechc]

Don't you actually have to do something in order to be eligible to win a Nobel prize?

[Sorry!]

Woah, when I first read the title of this I thought it was a joke. What exactly has Obama done that warrants him getting the prize? I want one too now..

[Lacy33]

Has anyone ever declined the Peace Prize and would this be humble/smart on Obama's part or make matters worse?

[humanino]

For now we have the press release
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."There is also this aspect, one must loose sight, between the politics of fears and nightmares, and the politics of hopes and dreams.

[Lacy33]

Do they mean in that press release, that no one else has ever had this vision??? My neighbors DOG has this vision!

[Astronuc]

While Mr. Obama certainly has displayed a willingness, and ambition, to make the world a more peaceful place, I think it was far too early to award him the prize this year.

Clearly, the Nobel commitee is determined to award it to him in order to give his peaceful efforts an extra push. The reason for the award - "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". What extraordinary efforts?!

I think it premature to give Obama the peace prize. At the moment, he's just doing the job he is supposed to do as president.

The prize should be awarded for accomplishments, not willingness to accomplish something.

[Pattonias]

I don't think awards should ever be given out for "good intentions." I mean this is not Peewee football no one should get awards for simply participating. What kind of light does this shine on the other recipients. Is theirs just as symbolic.

I think they should consider him once he has at least made some specific attempts at accomplishing what has been described in the award. Not simply giving him an award for talking about doing these things.

How many world leaders have discussed a want to pursue open world diplomacy and nuclear disarmament only to turn around and do something else or fail.

I think it was premature and a stunt on the part of the committee.

[Vanadium 50]

My neighbors DOG has this vision!

So why didn't you nominate Fido? :biggrin:

[Lacy33]

So why didn't you nominate Fido? :biggrin:

Well frankly no one ever asks me. But since that prize may soon be up for grabs again soon.... I nominate FRED.. (the dog)!
And since this is a big time for awards, congratulations to you and how do I get my signature to work? :) Thanks.

[arildno]

To give a few details about the reception of the news here in Norway:

a) Dagbladet, an influential newspaper here (and an "Obamafan"-paper as well), had a poll on the reception:
Of approx. 12000, 46% were against, 30% supportive.
Being somewhat of an embarrassment for the Obama-clique in dagbladet, it seems they have withdrawn the poll altogether.

b) This decision has most likely been browbeaten into fruition by the Comittee's new chairman, previous Prime Minister and Parlamentary President, Torbjørn Jagland.

He would easily have cowed any (well-founded) internal opposition, due to the personalities of the other members of NC.

[Pattonias]

As an American, I can already see that this will be the topic of the week and am already sick of the stupid arguments this will cause. The Republican party will criticize the President as if he had something to do with it, and the Democrats will be starry-eyed for the rest of the term.

[arildno]

EDIT:
After some difficulty, I found Dagbladet's poll again:
Respondents now at 40000+, against: 51%, supportive: 26%

[Mattara]

I agree with the general consensus here that perhaps it was a bit politicized, but of course there have been some weird recipients throughout history, such as Kissinger, Mother Teresa, The 14th Dalai Lama and Arafat, to name a few.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

[arildno]

Has anyone ever declined the Peace Prize and would this be humble/smart on Obama's part or make matters worse?



Of course, he would then "join" the company with Mr. Le Duc Tho, the North vietnamese who were given a joint prize in 1973 along with Henry Kissinger. Le Duc Tho chose to decline (not surprising, perhaps, since the North Vietnamese had no intention to keep their side of the bargain, anyway).

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/shortfacts.html

[leroyjenkens]

Must have been a slow year for peace.

How exactly does his vision differ from anyone elses? And since when does a vision warrant a peace prize?
This is on par with the Grammys.

[arildno]

Although the voting is secret, it is very probable that the 3 indiduals (out of 5) who finalized the decision was:

Thorbjørn Jagland

Sissel Rønbeck

Ågot Valle

Jagland and Rønbeck both have careers from the Labour party, Valle from the Socialist Left.

Kaci Five (Conservatives) and Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (Party of Progress) may well have had strong reservations, but have been "commanded" to keep their mouths shut.

Only once has internal dissent within the NC been made public, when Kåre Kristiansen lodged a formal dissent at the decision to award Yasser Arafat the Peace Prize in 1994 (co-sharing with Rabin and Peres).

[Lacy33]

Must have been a slow year for peace.

How exactly does his vision differ from anyone elses? And since when does a vision warrant a peace prize?
This is on par with the Grammys.

Fred...(the dog) would happily accept a Grammy for his constant barking, yapping and rapping, but decline the Nobel Peace prize for all the headache it would cause. And he says he is a Dog not a puppet.

[Borek]

I think it premature to give Obama the peace prize. At the moment, he's just doing the job he is supposed to do as president.

Bush was doing the same :wink:

But seriously, while I appreciate shift of the paradigm in US international policy, I agree that the prize awarded to Obama today is a nonsense. From my end of the world it seems like he has the potential to became one of those people who earnt the prize, but as of today it is long from happening.

[cristo]

I thought it was a joke when someone told me.. I was waiting for the punchline!

[Sorry!]

But seriously, while I appreciate shift of the paradigm in US international policy, I agree that the prize awarded to Obama today is a nonsense. From my end of the world it seems like he has the potential to became one of those people who earnt the prize, but as of today it is long from happening.

My thoughts exactly. I mean like he HAS done extremely well on the international political field (as far as I know) and made some great strides but I still feel its a bit premature for the prize. Imo it would be a perfectly O.K. decision on Obama's part to decline the prize... he's very charismatic so I'm sure he could defuse the entire situation. Has anyone declined the prize on the basis they felt they hadn't 'earned' it before?


@cristo

me too haha when I woke up this morning and saw this thread I didn't think it was true. Actually it was the last thing in my mind. I have nothing against Obama I actually am really supportive of him and his views but like come onnnnnn.

[physics girl phd]

I think it premature to give Obama the peace prize.

That was my first thought (once my husband really insisted he wasn't joking). I'm worried that public opinion about this prize will negatively impact the domestic and foreign policies that he's presently forwarding.

[Astronuc]

But seriously, while I appreciate shift of the paradigm in US international policy, I agree that the prize awarded to Obama today is a nonsense. From my end of the world it seems like he has the potential to became one of those people who earnt the prize, but as of today it is long from happening. Exactly.

That was my first thought (once my husband really insisted he wasn't joking). I'm worried that public opinion about this prize will negatively impact the domestic and foreign policies that he's presently forwarding. I saw arildno's post, and I thought it was a joke. Then I checked the Nobel website.

I've been promoting someone else for the Peace Prize. Well - at least Obama is twice eligible to nominate someone next year and until he leaves office.

[Sorry!]

I've been promoting someone else for the Peace Prize. Well - at least Obama is twice eligible to nominate someone next year and until he leaves office.

Was it me? :) Aww thanks astro :) <3

[Freeman Dyson]

The Nobel Peace Prize had no cred and it even has less now. This is a farce.

[Sorry!]

The Nobel Peace Prize had no cred and it even has less now. This is a farce.

I wouldn't mind getting a piece of the 10 million SEK that comes along with it.

[Astronuc]

Prize Awarder for the Nobel Peace Prize
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for selecting the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegain Parliament). The Committee's composition reflects the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting, and is assisted by specially appointed expert advisers. http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/peace/

I think the Storting is making a political statement. :grumpy:

I do hope Obama lives up to expectations.

[Freeman Dyson]

"Barack Obama was nominated for the award in February 2009, just two weeks into his presidency. The voting occurred in June, just four months into the Obama era."

wow. This is as unearned as his Presidency of the Law Review. Total affirmative action here.

[nuby]

Who do you think should have won the prize?

[George Jones]

It seems that a lot people thought their legs were being pulled. After reading it, I said out loud "I don't believe it!" My wife responded, "Don't believe what?" She thought I meant something to do with the LCROSS Moon impact. I showed her the BBC webpage, and she said "Are they joking?!" She thought it more likely that the BBC was playing a practical joke than it was that Obama had won the Peace Prize.

[turbo-1]

Nobel.org is getting swamped, I imagine. I can't log in to see if the committee gave any rationale for awarding Obama the peace price.

Yes, he has agreed to have discussions with Iran and Cuba, but past presidents should have done those things, as well. Nothing Earth-shaking there - just common sense. As Sun-tzu said "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." If you refuse to engage with your enemies or even to speak with them, you have thrown away any chance of constructively modifying their behavior, leaving only coercion.

[Count Iblis]

I think this was a good decision. The peace prize is usually given to people who are working to solve problems peacefully. They don't wait until such problems are solved. If it is clear that a page has been turned and a new process has been started then that's enough to award the peace price.

E.g., the IPCC and Al Gore got the peace price as soon as they became the authority on climate change that the World had recognized. We yet have to see if the World will indeed cut CO2 levels, but if that doesn't happen, no one can blame the IPCC.

In case of Obama, given what he has done so far, if nothing were to come of his plans then that would be most likely be due to the negative forces that he is confronting right now. By waiting to award the Nobel Prize, one would encourage these negative forces. By awarding the Prize now, you put them on the spot.

[Freeman Dyson]

He also recently gave the Dali Lama the finger to not upset China. Innocent people are being killed by his airstrikes in Pakistan. Gitmo is still open. Afghanistan and Iraq are still cooking... WTF?!

[alxm]

The Peace prize has always been 'activist' in nature, really. It was a pretty controversial thing back when it was created!

It was also ol' Alfred's original intent, really - awarding the person who'd done the most in the past year (and personally I would actually consider the election of Obama one of the single most significant victories for peace, disarmament, multilateralism and diplomacy in the last 12 months). .

The idea was always to be supporting and not only rewarding. (Which is why they don't give them to dead folks, for instance) So from that perspective, I have no issues with it. As Obama has defined and outlined his foreign policy so far, I think it's worthy of support. He's even revitalized 'classic' peace issues like nuclear disarmament that'd been dormant for quite some time.

And as others have said, even if it turned out to be a mistake, it's not likely to be their biggest mistake.

(Also, I don't buy that it could ever really devalue any of the other prizes really. As I said, it was controversial from the start, and everyone has an opinion on it. People don't generally have an opinion on the Science prizes.)

[Freeman Dyson]

The Peace prize has always been 'activist' in nature, really. It was a pretty controversial thing back when it was created!

It was also ol' Alfred's original intent, really - awarding the person who'd done the most in the past year (and personally I would actually consider the election of Obama one of the single most significant victories for peace, disarmament, multilateralism and diplomacy in the last 12 months). .

The idea was always to be supporting and not only rewarding. (Which is why they don't give them to dead folks, for instance) So from that perspective, I have no issues with it. As Obama has defined and outlined his foreign policy so far, I think it's worthy of support. He's even revitalized 'classic' peace issues like nuclear disarmament that'd been dormant for quite some time.

And as others have said, even if it turned out to be a mistake, it's not likely to be their biggest mistake.

(Also, I don't buy that it could ever really devalue any of the other prizes really. As I said, it was controversial from the start, and everyone has an opinion on it. People don't generally have an opinion on the Science prizes.)

Really? What has Obama done? How has the world gotten more peaceful? Give me something tangible. Talk is cheap.

[Dragonfall]

He also recently gave the Dali Lama the finger

Good. I would have done the same thing.

[Freeman Dyson]

Good. I would have done the same thing.

And why is that?

[Dragonfall]

I love how Fox News is reporting it.

[Pattonias]

I think this was a good decision. The peace prize is usually given to people who are working to solve problems peacefully. They don't wait until such problems are solved. If it is clear that a page has been turned and a new process has been started then that's enough to award the peace price.

E.g., the IPCC and Al Gore got the peace price as soon as they became the authority on climate change that the World had recognized. We yet have to see if the World will indeed cut CO2 levels, but if that doesn't happen, no one can blame the IPCC.

In case of Obama, given what he has done so far, if nothing were to come of his plans then that would be most likely be due to the negative forces that he is confronting right now. By waiting to award the Nobel Prize, one would encourage these negative forces. By awarding the Prize now, you put them on the spot.

That is just the problem, you don't give anyone an award to put them on the spot. How much more on the spot do you have to be than being elected President of the United States. You don't give someone a preemptive award to spurn them to earn it.

If he spent the term really trying his best to make a difference with his power and position then perhaps we can look back and say here is the recognition for you accomplishments as a human being. We don't say "you have the power to make change so here is your award for having that power."

This will make the Nobel Peace Prize an even bigger joke... It is already ridiculed on a regular basis, but what thread of respect it once held is being thrown away.

I can just see it now... And the Oscar goes to Extra 246 (Subway Guy) for recognition of his ambition as a new actor....

[Count Iblis]

The people who oppose Obama are put on the spot.

[Dragonfall]

And why is that?

I'm going to assume that you're into the Dalai Lama because Steven Segal and Harrison Ford are into him, so I'll let you do your own research on what the Dalai Lama really stands for.

[alxm]

Really? What has Obama done? How has the world gotten more peaceful? Give me something tangible.

Begun the process of withdrawing from Iraq, of shutting down Gitmo, shutting down the CIA not-so-'secret' prisons, banned torture. (human rights does fall in with the Peace prize). To begin with.

Second: Go back and read my post again, slowly. My whole point was that they intend to show support for his stated aims and goals by giving him the prize, not reward him for things he's already accomplished.

Talk is cheap.

Diplomacy is talk, and it doesn't come cheap. And it's a lot better than the alternative.

[Freeman Dyson]

I'm going to assume that you're into the Dalai Lama because Steven Segal and Harrison Ford are into him, so I'll let you do your own research on what the Dalai Lama really stands for.

What does he really stand for? Stop dodging.

[Pattonias]

The people who oppose Obama are put on the spot.

What do you mean?

[alxm]

This will make the Nobel Peace Prize an even bigger joke... It is already ridiculed on a regular basis, but what thread of respect it once held is being thrown away.


The naysayers were saying that already when the prize was created. So if they committee hadn't actually done a good job overall, they wouldn't have any respect to throw out.

And no matter how you want to look at it, it's still hands-down the most prestigious award of its kind, anywhere. People mention a few prizes they think were bad out of over 100? That's nothing compared to all the absolutely outstanding people who've received it. From Albert Schweitzer to Martin Luther King to Nelson Mandela to the Dalai Lama.

Oh and American conservatives were naturally complaining when the 'communist' MLK got it as well. How controversial was that in hindsight?

I'm not saying Obama is necessarily MLK, but I am saying the Nobel committee has a pretty dang good track-record really, compared to most pundits and talking heads.

[Cyrus]

Obama won a Nobel prize...........lolz....... For doing what?

[Pattonias]

The naysayers were saying that already when the prize was created. So if they committee hadn't actually done a good job overall, they wouldn't have any respect to throw out.

And no matter how you want to look at it, it's still hands-down the most prestigious award of its kind, anywhere. People mention a few prizes they think were bad out of over 100? That's nothing compared to all the absolutely outstanding people who've received it. From Albert Schweitzer to Martin Luther King to Nelson Mandela to the Dalai Lama.

Oh and American conservatives were naturally complaining when the 'communist' MLK got it as well. How controversial was that in hindsight?

I'm not saying Obama is necessarily MLK, but I am saying the Nobel committee has a pretty dang good track-record really, compared to most pundits and talking heads.

Don't get me wrong the problem I have with the award is that I think it is the most prestigious award of its kind. I actually have a great deal of respect for the NBPP, but I don't think it should be used as political leverage. Giving away the Nobel Peace prize with an implied stipulation that well you now have to live up to this is ridiculous.

People are wondering how this is going to affect his deployment of troops to Afghanistan. As a soldier I can tell you that it should have no affect whatsoever. That will not be the case, now people can try and weigh his decision against whether or not it coincides with his preemptive award. I can tell you that stalling on the decision to weigh it politically is going to hurt us. He either needs to take us out or put us in. Then be prepared to deal with the consequences of either decision.

I think he should respectfully decline the reward. He can always be eligible when he is finished.

[Mattara]

I find it hilarious that the peace prize is giving to someone who is actively involved in at least a handful of wars at this very moment (war in afghanistan, war in iraq, war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on poverty).

[Hans de Vries]

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN

I warmly congratulate President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obamahas made extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and co-operation between peoples. He has also demonstrated his
strong commitment to help build peace and defend fundamental human rights,
including through the atlantic alliance. This honour is well deserved.


FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY

It confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...
you can count on my resolute support and that of France.


SOUHAYR BELHASSEN, PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is a way of encouraging him to not
renege on the universal principles that he has championed. We would have
preferred a human rights defender like Oleg Orlov from Memorial in Russia or
Natalia Estemirova [human rights activist murdered in Chechnya].


ALI AKABR JAVANFEKR, AIDE TO IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice
to the world order.We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he
will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world.


SIAMAK HIRAI, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI

We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel. His hard work and his new vision on
global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global
level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.


MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

I am happy. What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal, he gave hope. In
these hard times, people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision,
commitment and political will should be supported.


JAN OBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR PEACE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

I am concerned at the drift of the prize that is invariably going to politicians who have
been, or who are still, involved in warfare. Obama has not left Iraq, he has stepped it
up in Afghanistan. It is somewhat paradoxical to give it to a president who presides
over the largest military arsenal in world history.


MOHAMED ELBARADEI, HEAD OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

There is nobody today in my view who is more deserving of that peace prize than
Barack Obama. In less than a year he brought a radical change in the way we look
at ourselves, in the way we look at our world. He is restoring the basic core values
that every one of us should live by - dialogue, respect, democracy, due process,
human rights, a security system that does not depend on nuclear weapons. His
dedication to these values rekindles hope that, finally, we could have a world at
peace with itself.


ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR

I would like to congratulate President Obama on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a short time he has established a new tone, creating a willingness for dialogue
and I think we all should support him to make peace in this world possible. There is
a lot do but a window of opportunity has been opened. His advocacy of a world free
of nuclear arms is an aim we all need to make real in the next few years. Again,
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American
president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.


YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

I am really pleased. I want to congratulate him from my heart. I've seen the world
changing since President Obama took office. It was outstanding when he made the
speech in Prague calling for a nuclear-free world.


KHALED AL-BATSH, AN ISLAMIC JIHAD LEADER

Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by
the principles of credibility, values and morals. Why should Obama be given a peace
prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers
continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?


TALIBAN SPOKESMAN ZABIHULLAH MUJAHID

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace
in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make
this country stable. We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama.
We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's
peace prize as unjust.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm

[noblegas]

Wow , talk radio is going to have a field day with this story. I agree with astronuc, I think he was awarded the nobel peace prize way too early , there needs to be more time to see how his foreign policy strategies play out in the middle east and elsewhere. On top of that, we still have troops in Iraq and we are injecting troops in aghanistan and we are in the process of thinking about invading iran if they don't stopped expanding there nuclear technology . How is that a form of peace? Nobody should qualify for a nobel peace prize until they actually get two or more countries to stop warring with each other and therefore should not be given out on a yearly basis. Nobody should be awarded the nobel peace prize for only saying that they will end nuclear proliferation ; There has been talk in the past for ending nuclear proliferation but has actually never been carried out. Ceasing nuclear proliferation to me means all countries with nuclear weapons, eradicating and ejecting themselves from the nuclear weapons and I do envision the united states ridden itself of all that expensive sophisticated nuclear weapons that have probably amounted to 500 billion dollars over the last 50 or so years(http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx).

[Equate]

"Barack Obama was nominated for the award in February 2009, just two weeks into his presidency. The voting occurred in June, just four months into the Obama era."



Source? Somehow I can't believe that according to this:

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

[cristo]

I think this was a good decision. The peace prize is usually given to people who are working to solve problems peacefully. They don't wait until such problems are solved. If it is clear that a page has been turned and a new process has been started then that's enough to award the peace price.

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:

[humanino]

...
Thanks for posting informed, relevant comments.
President Obama said he was "both surprised and deeply humbled" by the award.

"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," the president said.

"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 - men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

"But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents."

[Count Iblis]

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:

For having demonstrated to be competent at not being Bush. He is not a polarizing figure and he is willing to compromize. So, if he fails then it is not likely his fault. Had Obama not been the president but instead McCain or Hillary, this would likely not ben the case, despite them being also different from Bush.

Take e.g. the dispute with Iran. The US under Obama is willing to consider any possible solution in which Iran can be verified not to produce nuclear weapons. It is likely that under McCain or Hillary, the US would simply have demanded that Iran complies with UNSC resolutions and if Iran continues to refuse to suspend their enrichment program, they would have concluded that: "Diplomacy has failed".

If Obama's policies were to fail, it would be difficult to put the blame on him. Awarding the prize to him at this time, now that he has demonstrated to be flexible to the maximum extent, pre-emtively puts the blame on any possible failures on his opponents, which is reasonable.

[Count Iblis]

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN

I warmly congratulate President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obamahas made extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and co-operation between peoples. He has also demonstrated his
strong commitment to help build peace and defend fundamental human rights,
including through the atlantic alliance. This honour is well deserved.


FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY

It confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...
you can count on my resolute support and that of France.


SOUHAYR BELHASSEN, PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is a way of encouraging him to not
renege on the universal principles that he has championed. We would have
preferred a human rights defender like Oleg Orlov from Memorial in Russia or
Natalia Estemirova [human rights activist murdered in Chechnya].


ALI AKABR JAVANFEKR, AIDE TO IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice
to the world order.We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he
will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world.


SIAMAK HIRAI, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI

We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel. His hard work and his new vision on
global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global
level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.


MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

I am happy. What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal, he gave hope. In
these hard times, people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision,
commitment and political will should be supported.


JAN OBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR PEACE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

I am concerned at the drift of the prize that is invariably going to politicians who have
been, or who are still, involved in warfare. Obama has not left Iraq, he has stepped it
up in Afghanistan. It is somewhat paradoxical to give it to a president who presides
over the largest military arsenal in world history.


MOHAMED ELBARADEI, HEAD OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

There is nobody today in my view who is more deserving of that peace prize than
Barack Obama. In less than a year he brought a radical change in the way we look
at ourselves, in the way we look at our world. He is restoring the basic core values
that every one of us should live by - dialogue, respect, democracy, due process,
human rights, a security system that does not depend on nuclear weapons. His
dedication to these values rekindles hope that, finally, we could have a world at
peace with itself.


ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR

I would like to congratulate President Obama on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a short time he has established a new tone, creating a willingness for dialogue
and I think we all should support him to make peace in this world possible. There is
a lot do but a window of opportunity has been opened. His advocacy of a world free
of nuclear arms is an aim we all need to make real in the next few years. Again,
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American
president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.


YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

I am really pleased. I want to congratulate him from my heart. I've seen the world
changing since President Obama took office. It was outstanding when he made the
speech in Prague calling for a nuclear-free world.


KHALED AL-BATSH, AN ISLAMIC JIHAD LEADER

Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by
the principles of credibility, values and morals. Why should Obama be given a peace
prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers
continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?


TALIBAN SPOKESMAN ZABIHULLAH MUJAHID

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace
in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make
this country stable. We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama.
We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's
peace prize as unjust.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm

Yoiu forgot to include the reaction of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. :biggrin:

[Monique]

I wonder what he will do with the money, he apparently is not convinced as well that he has earned it.

[noblegas]

For having demonstrated to be competent at not being Bush. He is not a polarizing figure and he is willing to compromize. So, if he fails then it is not likely his fault. Had Obama not been the president but instead McCain or Hillary, this would likely not ben the case, despite them being also different from Bush.



How is he not a polarizing figure? Most republicans have voted against his policies and legislative proposals. That seems very polarizing to me. He has demonstrated to be competent in terms of being able to put a sentence together correctly , not in terms of his actually getting things done. He has not yet proposed any legislation to teared down the patriot act, We don't know if his health plan reforms and his stimulus package will actually helped americans, too early to tell.


Take e.g. the dispute with Iran. The US under Obama is willing to consider any possible solution in which Iran can be verified not to produce nuclear weapons.

Seems like the Obama administation wants to imposed an ultimatum rather than compromise with Iran , since they don't want iran to possess any nuclear weapons(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran).

If Obama's policies were to fail, it would be difficult to put the blame on him. Awarding the prize to him at this time, now that he has demonstrated to be flexible to the maximum extent, pre-emtively puts the blame on any possible failures on his opponents, which is reasonable.

Who are we to blame if obama's policies were to fail if not the obama administration ? Did we not blame the Bush adminstration(rightfully so) for his failed policies in Iraq and blame his adminstation for completely on the fourth amendment?

[Count Iblis]

How is he not a polarizing figure? Most republicans have voted against his policies and legislative proposals. That seems very polarizing to me. He has demonstrated to be competent in terms of being able to put a sentence together correctly , not in terms of his actually getting things done. He has not yet proposed any legislation to teared down the patriot act, We don't know if his health plan reforms and his stimulus package will actually helped americans, too early to tell.

Obama has taken into account criticism from Republicans. That the Republicans have decided to oppose Obama for the sake of opposing him, is their decision. A few days ago some Republicans have warned about being too obstructive to health care reform.


Seems like the Obama administation wants to imposed an ultimatum rather than compromise with Iran , since they don't want iran to possess any nuclear weapons(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran).


Yes, but now on reasonable grounds. I.e. Iran has to show that they are not persuing nuclear weapons and they can propose how they want to proceed on that matter. The US is now not dictating to Iran what they can or cannot do as far as civilian nuclear energy is concerned. The old Bush policy: "Iran must stop to enrich uranium, or else.." is no longer the US policy.


Who are we to blame if obama's policies were to fail if not the obama administration ? Did we not blame the Bush adminstration(rightfully so) for his failed policies in Iraq and blame his adminstation for completely on the fourth amendment?

If Blix had found evidence that Saddam had stockples of WMD and that Saddam was unwilling to disarm, and he had asked the UNSC to consider the military option, then no one would have blamed Bush for starting the Iraq war. Of course, things could have gone wrong later on in that war, but there would have been no fingerpointing at Bush at the start of the war.

[Pattonias]

For having demonstrated to be competent at not being Bush. He is not a polarizing figure and he is willing to compromize. So, if he fails then it is not likely his fault. Had Obama not been the president but instead McCain or Hillary, this would likely not ben the case, despite them being also different from Bush.



I think that we are walking on dangerous ground if we say that his success is his doing, but his failure is due to someone else. One thing you have to remember about the American government is that everything gets blamed on the President... Everything

We can't forget the several hundred elected officials who are actually responsible for the policies being made. The people in both(all) the political parties.

This double standard is evident with congress today. Congress messes up and it gets blamed on the President and the same people who voted on the problem get re-elected, while the President takes the heat.

(On a lighter note, I feel sorry for Obama as he is going to look like Abraham Lincoln when he leaves office. All that stress is going to make him lose like 30 pounds. Bush aged like 20 years.)

[arildno]

I think this is the Nobel prize award with the least backing in the Norwegian people that I have ever seen.
In the Dagbladet poll, out of 65000+ respondents, 55% are against this decision:
http://stem.start.no/result.php?id=8685

[G01]

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:

It's like winning the Nobel Prize in Physics because your not a "quantum mechanics tells us we can control things with our minds" crackpot...

[leroyjenkens]

If it was up to Americans, he would've probably won several different Nobel Prizes. So it could have been worse.
Remember when he wrote that excuse from class note for that little girl because she was attending one of his speeches? There you go, that's a literature Nobel Prize.

[Pattonias]

Remember when he wrote that excuse from class note for that little girl because she was attending one of his speeches?

All politics aside I hadn't heard about that. Thats pretty cool.


--------------------------------------------------------------
I think for the most part the Americans will feel the same way most everyone else will.
There will always be exception though.

[edward]

It's like winning the Nobel Prize in Physics because your not a "quantum mechanics tells us we can control things with our minds" crackpot...

A friend of mine commented that it is like winning the prize for attempted chemistry.

On the serious side eight years of fear mongering had the world a bit upset with the USA. To paraphrase a lot of media accounts, the prize was awarded for being the Anti-Bush.

[noblegas]

Obama has taken into account criticism from Republicans. That the Republicans have decided to oppose Obama for the sake of opposing him, is their decision. A few days ago some Republicans have warned about being too obstructive to health care reform.

Why can't you see the partisan bias on both sides? Why can't there be democrats voting with him on all issues for the sake of supporting him? Most people are satisfied with their health insurance plans and don't want big changes in healthcare..( http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx)


Yes, but now on reasonable grounds. I.e. Iran has to show that they are not persuing nuclear weapons and they can propose how they want to proceed on that matter. The US is now not dictating to Iran what they can or cannot do as far as civilian nuclear energy is concerned. The old Bush policy: "Iran must stop to enrich uranium, or else.." is no longer the US policy.

Why should Iran have to show they are not persuing nuclear weapons? It is not our job to tell other countries how to run their nuclear program, especially a country such as the US who currently possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Why are we allow to have nuclear weapons but not Iran. And if iran decides to go ahead with their nuclear weapons program, then do we have a right to invade iran? I don't think so.

"Iran must stop to enrich uranium, or else.." is no longer a US policy

I don't think soo. ... PITTSBURGH – Backed by other world powers, President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse. ... source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran

[Pengwuino]

On the serious side eight years of fear mongering had the world a bit upset with the USA. To paraphrase a lot of media accounts, the prize was awarded for being the Anti-Bush.

Why didn't they just give the award to the city of San Francisco then.

The general consensus seems to be that he was awarded the prize for not being Bush and saying he's gonna do a lot of stuff. Hilary must be pretty pissed at the moment. She just lost out on a nobel prize.

[Pattonias]

Why should Iran have to show they are not persuing nuclear weapons? It is not our job to tell other countries how to run their nuclear program, especially a country such as the US who currently possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Why are we allow to have nuclear weapons but not Iran. And if iran decides to go ahead with their nuclear weapons program, then do we have a right to invade iran? I don't think so.



I don't think soo. source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of anyone having nuclear weapons, we don't have terrorist organizations within our government who's idea of fighting a war is strapping a bomb to one of your own men and blowing him up in a crowded civilian area. I think we are worried about who will end up with the weapons once they are being produced. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is due to mutually assured destruction... What happens when one person doesn't care if they are killed?

Unfortunately this is getting off topic. I'll refrain from arguing any more on this point in this thread.

[SticksandStones]

Why didn't they just give the award to the city of San Francisco then.

The general consensus seems to be that he was awarded the prize for not being Bush and saying he's gonna do a lot of stuff. Hilary must be pretty pissed at the moment. She just lost out on a nobel prize.

Because the city of San Francisco isn't in charge of the country who's policies pretty much dictate everything else in the world.

[noblegas]

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of anyone having nuclear weapons, we don't have terrorist organizations within our government who's idea of fighting a war is strapping a bomb to one of your own men and blowing him up in a crowded civilian area. I think we are worried about who will end up with the weapons once they are being produced. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is due to mutually assured destruction... What happens when one person doesn't care if they are killed?

Unfortunately this is getting off topic. I'll refrain from arguing any more on this point in this thread.

Yeah, I don't want to stray off topic anymore either. But I will make one final response: the US has supported or allowed terrorism within our on borders(KKK terrorizing blacks and other non-whites in the south and elsewhere, invading and masscrating the lands of the native americans to make way for american settlements) and abroad(Israel was created based on terrorists acts, for 1 million palestinians were expelled from their home, many considered dropping two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians and detoppling newly form democracy in third world countries and replacing them with dictatorships could be considered acts of terrorism. )

[Hans de Vries]

The general consensus seems to be that he was awarded the prize for not being Bush and saying he's gonna do a lot of stuff. Hilary must be pretty pissed at the moment. She just lost out on a nobel prize.

In that case Bush may be really pissed off that he didn't share in the Noble price, since if it
wasn't for his hard work all those years then Obama wouldn't have had a change...

Regards, Hans

[Pengwuino]

Because the city of San Francisco isn't in charge of the country who's policies pretty much dictate everything else in the world.

It was a joke.

A lot of the reactions about his getting the Nobel Prize make me wonder how stupid are people anyhow. If people believe him receiving this prize is going to help him in whatever he does, how dumb are the people who he will have conferences with/debate with/whatever be? The Prize now seems practically worthless (+ 1.3 million dollars), so what merit does it hold? Is some country going to say "You know what, we were on the fence about building a nuclear weapon, but you having that Prize tipped us in favor of not doing it". I mean really, what does having that Prize bring to the table that Obama minus the Prize can't?

[cristo]

Because the city of San Francisco isn't in charge of the country who's policies pretty much dictate everything else in the world.

Gotta love the arrogance of (some of) you yanks :rolleyes:

[arildno]

The Prize now seems practically worthless (+ 1.3 million dollars), so what merit does it hold?

3 individuals (i.e the majority within the NC committe) determine each year who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

In order to maintain the Prize's status, those 3 cannot do as they chose to do this year.


The Nobel Peace Prize has managed to maintain some political relevance, because former members of the NC knew that it was not their job to play politics, but rather, to give due recognition for a work well done.


The present committe represents a new step in the politization, and process of self-destruction, of the Nobel Peace Prize.

[turbo-1]

3 individuals (i.e the majority within the NC committe) determine each year who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

In order to maintain the Prize's status, those 3 cannot do as they chose to do this year.


The Nobel Peace Prize has managed to maintain some political relevance, because former members of the NC knew that it was not their job to play politics, but rather, to give due recognition for a work well done.


The present committe represents a new step in the politization, and process of self-destruction, of the Nobel Peace Prize.Is that really the case? Did not the original prize embody a kind of political activism? As in: "We recognize your goals and ambitions and wish to free you from some financial constraints and encourage you to continue your work."?

There are some dead people who did some valuable work and whose foundations might benefit greatly from the monetary portion of the peace prize, but they are ineligible. I thought that this was because their necritude prevents them from continuing their work, though I could be wrong.

BTW, I thought the prize was way premature. Obama has to do a lot more than dial back US unilateralism and agree to talk with some governments that have been long-regarded as pariahs by US ideologues (left and right) before we can expect real progress toward world peace. Congress appropriates money, but the President has veto power. I hope Obama has the cojones to veto military aid to countries that come to us begging for money, and then squander it and/or refuse to engage with us in conflict-resolution in their regions.

[Astronuc]

Is that really the case? Did not the original prize embody a kind of political activism? As in: "We recognize your goals and ambitions and wish to free you from some financial constraints and encourage you to continue your work."? And Obama is not financially constrained the way many others are. He just signs the bills that Congress writes.

There are some dead people who did some valuable work and whose foundations might benefit greatly from the monetary portion of the peace prize, but they are ineligible. I thought that this was because their necritude prevents them from continuing their work, though I could be wrong. Nobel's are not awarded posthumously, but in the case of the Peace Prize, institutions can be awarded the prize, even if one of their primary persons is deceased.

BTW, I thought the prize was way premature. It is WAY, WAY premature. The horse just left the gate, and a whole lot of race remains to be run.

[WhoWee]

I'm actually going to defend Obama. An award of this magnitude, this early in his career, is clearly too soon. This is going to put very high expectations on him as well as much closer scrutiny.

This is from Time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500
"The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.

Inspirational words have brought him a long way - including to the night in Grant Park less than a year ago when he asked that we "join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand." (See pictures of Obama in Grant Park.)

By now there are surely more callouses on his lips than his hands. He, like every new president, has reckoned with both the power and the danger of words, dangers that are especially great for one who wields them as skillfully as he. A promise beautifully made raises hopes especially high: we will revive the economy while we rein in our spending; we will make health care simpler, safer, cheaper, fairer. We will rid the earth of its most lethal weapons. We will turn green and clean. We will all just get along. (See pictures of eight months of Obama's diplomacy.)

So when reality bites, it chomps down hard. The Nobel committee cited "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." His critics fault some of those efforts: those who favor a missile shield for Poland or a troop surge in Afghanistan or a harder line on Iran. But even his fans know that none of the dreams have yet come true, and a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have. (See the Top 10 Obama Backlash Moments)"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

I'm looking for a link that will prove/disprove that voting was cut off in February 2009 - just weeks after Obama took office. Does anyone know the definitive cut-off date for nominations or when the actual voting took place?

[Cyrus]

He should give the prize to someone that deserves it.

[Astronuc]

I'm looking for a link that will prove/disprove that voting was cut off in February 2009 - just weeks after Obama took office. Does anyone know the definitive cut-off date for nominations or when the actual voting took place? http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

The process diagram indicates that in February and March, a group generates a shortlist, then the list is reviewed from March to August, and the prize winners are chosen in October.

[Pengwuino]

He should give the prize to someone that deserves it.

I can imagine Kanye West interrupting Obama when he receives the award and declares Beyonce deserved the Peace Prize instead.

[turbo-1]

Obama has already said that the monetary prize will be donated to charity.

[jobyts]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

Jobyts --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

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 -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

[Astronuc]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks. Hmmm - he left out the DONATE button. :biggrin:

[Pengwuino]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

I love this part

Jobyts --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

Reminds me of how my friends use to call eachother in real life by their world of warcraft names.

Oh and if you replaced your real name by your PF names for privacy issues, don't tell us, it's way funnier this way.

[lisab]

I love this part



Reminds me of how my friends use to call eachother in real life by their world of warcraft names.

Oh and if you replaced your real name by your PF names for privacy issues, don't tell us, it's way funnier this way.

Maybe that is his (her?) real name. I assume yours is real too.

[Pengwuino]

Maybe that is his (her?) real name. I assume yours is real too.

That's Mr. Pengwuino to you.

[mheslep]

There were so many opportunities for powerful political and diplomatic wins here in declining the prize - it stuns me that Obama failed to do so.

In one stroke it would have squashed all of the 'messiah', 'in love with his image', 9000 camera appearances a day, too much celebrity criticisms levelled at him.
He could have held the podium for an hour speaking persuasively about what the prize should mean, I think without sounding unappreciative, to include comparisons to American leadership in the past from the likes of Theodore Roosevelt.
He could have named any number of deserving candidates to great effect around the world:
-Any one of the more peaceful dissidents in Iran; thus pressure the mullahs and protect the dissidents via prestige. Only with the help of dissidents will Iran's bomb making plans will be stopped.
-Iraqi leadership. The world's eye is off of Iraq now, but there is no guarantee that it will continue in relative calm. Pointing out a candidate there, like say al-Sistani who is widely respected and consistently called for peace throughout the worst of the violence and at great danger to himself would go further to improve the odds.
-Burma. Recall the massacre of the monks 2007? Put the spotlight back on Rangoon.
-Envoys Holbrooke and Mitchell are both deserving, a shout out from the podium must aid their negotiating positions.

[Hurkyl]

That's Mr. Pengwuino to you.
Mister? That's a funny title for a bird.

[Pengwuino]

There were so many opportunities for powerful political and diplomatic wins here in declining the prize - it stuns me that Obama failed to do so.


BUT, it would remove all doubt that the Peace Prize is completely political. It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation and to people who have already received it who genuinely deserved it. If he accepts it, you can at least argue that it was simply a big big stretch to give it to him or at the worst, a mistake. If the recipient doesn't even accept it with these circumstances, that's even worse than saying it's a mistake IMHO.

I see it as saying, for example, how a referee calls something in a sport. If the referee makes a terrible mistake and let's say, people claim its because the referee favors one team, then that's fairly bad. However, if the team the call favored even said it was wrong, that brings the whole system into question; that even people who would benefit call attention to an error is huge.

[turbo-1]

Mister? That's a funny title for a bird.Pairs of Mr. Pengwuinos have happily protected and incubated eggs and hatched and reared the chicks.

[Hurkyl]

It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation
Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

[lisab]

In the near future, President Obama will make a difficult decision about Afghanistan. How ironic will it be should he decide to send in ~40,000 more troops (quite possible, maybe even likely)?

And I want to believe that this award will affect that decision...I really don't think it will.

oops, edit: I want to believe it *won't* affect that decision! :redface:

[Hurkyl]

And I want to believe that this award will affect that decision...I really don't think it will.
I want my elected leaders to make decisions based on available facts and designed to best achieve good* goals.

A leader whose decisions are influenced by silly political stunts like this is exactly what I don't want.


*: I won't attempt a definition of "good"

[mheslep]

BUT, it would remove all doubt that the Peace Prize is completely political. It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation and to people who have already received it who genuinely deserved it. If he accepts it, you can at least argue that it was simply a big big stretch to give it to him or at the worst, a mistake. If the recipient doesn't even accept it with these circumstances, that's even worse than saying it's a mistake IMHO.

I see it as saying, for example, how a referee calls something in a sport. If the referee makes a terrible mistake and let's say, people claim its because the referee favors one team, then that's fairly bad. However, if the team the call favored even said it was wrong, that brings the whole system into question; that even people who would benefit call attention to an error is huge.I agree - we are in the latter condition, and thus the need to take this opportunity to stop the slouch towards empty meaning. Obama could have done that today in an hour. It need not have been all critical either. Presidents, good ones, are adept at saying 'look how great this could be' without scolding.

[turbo-1]

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.I'm with you on this one. Obama could have said something like "I have not accomplished enough to warrant this prestigious honor, and I ask that the committee please accept my heartfelt appreciation, and choose an alternate recipient. Please choose somebody who has already accomplished much to advance world peace, and who might have some financial constraints limiting their work that this prize might alleviate, so that they can continue their work, and perhaps expand their influence and magnify the good that they have already accomplished." No harm, no foul. Obama comes off as gracious (when is he not?), the committee gets to continue their work and re-evaluate the nominees, and everybody (including Obama) benefits when the award is made. If a woman in a Muslim regime like Indonesia or a repressive state like Myanmar got the prize for trying to secure basic freedoms for other women or dissidents in general, would that be so bad? Just think - $1.3M is going to go a hell of a lot further in a 3rd world country than it would here. Sometimes, establishing little pockets of freedom and justice can advance the cause of a greater peace, since terrorism is so frequently brewing in places that enjoy neither.

[mheslep]

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.Exactly

[lisab]

I want my elected leaders to make decisions based on available facts and designed to best achieve good* goals.

A leader whose decisions are influenced by silly political stunts like this is exactly what I don't want.


*: I won't attempt a definition of "good"

Oops, see my edited post.

[rootX]

He is too sexy when he is on the stage.

Or,

maybe judges wanted to have influence on Obama's future decisions.

[Pengwuino]

I'm with you on this one. Obama could have said something like "I have not accomplished enough to warrant this prestigious honor, and I ask that the committee please accept my heartfelt appreciation, and choose an alternate recipient. Please choose somebody who has already accomplished much to advance world peace, and who might have some financial constraints limiting their work that this prize might alleviate, so that they can continue their work, and perhaps expand their influence and magnify the good that they have already accomplished." No harm, no foul. Obama comes off as gracious (when is he not?), the committee gets to continue their work and re-evaluate the nominees, and everybody (including Obama) benefits when the award is made. If a woman in a Muslim regime like Indonesia or a repressive state like Myanmar got the prize for trying to secure basic freedoms for other women or dissidents in general, would that be so bad? Just think - $1.3M is going to go a hell of a lot further in a 3rd world country than it would here. Sometimes, establishing little pockets of freedom and justice can advance the cause of a greater peace, since terrorism is so frequently brewing in places that enjoy neither.

This is thinking only about the present though. What about next year? or the year after? Unless you're idealistic like you're being and they give it to someone who is unquestionably worthy of the prize, you'll have controversy over its awarding since now the political factor will be even more apparent.

[Hurkyl]

This is thinking only about the present though. What about next year? or the year after? Unless you're idealistic like you're being and they give it to someone who is unquestionably worthy of the prize, you'll have controversy over its awarding since now the political factor will be even more apparent.
Er, I do want them awarding the prize to someone who is unquestionably worthy.

[Pengwuino]

Er, I do want them awarding the prize to someone who is unquestionably worthy.

Except it's already known they don't and haven't at times. This just makes it worse.

[mheslep]

I toss my shoe, steel toed boots, and everything else nearby at the smug Crowley:
Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/state-dept-better-to-get-thrown-accolades-than-shoes.php

[lisab]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

OK, I just checked my hotmail account and I got the same letter. But I don't understand the subject title: "Not the first, but the last". Huh?

[arildno]

I am saddened at seeing how the current committee behind the Nobel Peace Prize does no longer understand the mandate they have been given by the will of Alfred Nobel, and the accrued tradition from previous committees and award-winners.

Well into the 1980s, and also 1990s, the tradition was alive and well, but in the 2000s, the Committee has veered into a number of positively strange decisions.


If we look at the first decade of the twentieth century, all prizes except for the 1906, went to representatives of organizations devoted to peace, international arbitration and/or de-armament (in addition to Dunant's prize in 1901, for the founding of the Red Cross).

The 1906 was awarded President T. Roosevelt for having effected several peace treaties, in particular that between Russia and Japan.


This pattern of either giving the prize to a "grass-roots" movement that has worked tirelessly for several years, for some important aspect of "peace", or to a politician who has succesfully negotiated some such peace, has been recognizable well into the 1980s and 1990s:

To look at those from the 1980s:
Since the will of Alfred Nobel mentions the importance of working towards the "fraternity of mankind", to award human rights activists (working for EQUAL human rights, that is!) with the Peace Prize can hardly be said to violate the spirit behind the prize:

Universally recognized individuals like Lech Walesa (1983), Desmond Tutu (1984), Elie Wiesel (1986) and the 14th Dalai Lama (1989) appears on the list, along with organizations like:
1981: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1988: United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
, while the 1980 and 1982 went to peace activists like Esquivel, Myrdal and Robles.

The only significant politician to be awarded the peace prize was Costa Ricas president Sanchez in 1987, in particular for the peace accords signed in Guatemala that year.


The pattern from the first decade of the Prize's existence is entirely recognizable with that of the 1980s.


In the 1990s, one might well regard it as inauspicious trend that the following politicians were awarded the prize:

Gorbachev (1990), F. W de Klerk (1993 along with the hardly controversial choice Mandela), Arafat (1994) Hume&Trimble (1998)

More traditional prizes were given to Aung San Kyi (1991), Rigoberta Menchu (1992), Pugwash (1995), International campaign for the Ban on Landmines (1997) and Médecins Sans Frontières (1999)

In the 2000s, the old pattern has clearly been breaking up:

In 2000, South Korea's president Kim Dae-jung was awarded the prize for his "sunshine policy", in PARTICULAR for his attempts on rapprochements with..North Korea!

Somehow, to desire accomodation with an extremely oppressive regime like North Korea was now to be hailed as working for "human rights".

In 2004, Wanghari Matthai gets the prize for tree-planting projects in Africa.
Surely a worthy project, but is this really in accordance with the tradition accrued to the Peace Prize??
Similarly with the 2007 prize to Al Gore, and the micro-financing projects from the Grameen Bank in 2006.

The prize in 2005 for the International Atomic Energy Agency seems rather odd, as well.

With the 2009 prize to a President for his ability to generate enthusiasm and high hopes, rather than any concrete results, the Nobel Committee has shown itself determined to play politics, and therefore, self-destruct into irrelevance.


A prize like the Nobel Peace Prize can only maintain its integrity by keeping true to its tradition, and to pick solid candidates of universal recognition for their work.

To play politics, which is the chairman Jagland's STATED justification, namely ("It is now that OBama has changed the climate, it would be "too late" to give it to him in 3 years time) is to seriously misunderstand the legacy he has been appointed to manage.

Since he is STILL an active politician, who just recently was appointed the head of the European Council (not to be confused with the EU), he has drawn serious criticism from the opposition that he cannot have this double role.

Hopefully, he will be pushed out of the Nobel committe, but since his political pupil, Jens Stoltenberg, is now the prime minister in a simple majority cabinet, it is not very likely.

The official 1901-2008 list of winners can be found here, with links to biographies, presentation speeches, etc:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.html

[Astronuc]

Nobel Peace award stuns even O aides
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/nobel_peace_award_stuns_even_aides_Yve8xmY1IsSd2Au 9azigJJ
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded yesterday to President Obama in a stunning choice that left much of the world wondering why the committee chose to bestow the honor on the new president.

The predawn announcement from Oslo, Norway, even shocked the White House.

"It's not April 1, is it?" one incredulous presidential aide said when told of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision by an ABC News correspondent.
. . . .
The president said he was "surprised and humbled," and conceded that the critics had a point.

"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," he said.

"I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."
. . . . So it seems Obama will accept the award. I'm interested to see 'how he leads the nation in confronting the challenges of the 21st century.'

Analysis: A great prize, but will it help goals?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091010/ap_on_an/us_obama_nobel_analysis
Ummm -what goals?

Are these really the goals - rid the world of nuclear weapons, to forge Mideast peace and stabilize Afghanistan, to halt climate change?
The widespread reaction, however, when the stunning news hit the nation was: For what? Yep.

[Astronuc]

Here is an interesting observation in an AP analysis:

Comments from Nobel committee members revealed that they fully intended to encourage, not reward. Consider this: The nomination deadline was only 12 days after Obama first entered the Oval Office. It's an enduring myth that the prize is only about accomplishment — it actually was created as much to supply momentum for peace as to celebrate it.

Indeed, with a leftist slant, the five-member committee was applauding Obama as much for what he's not — his predecessor. Former President George W. Bush was much reviled overseas for "cowboy diplomacy," the Iraq war and his snubbing of European priorities such as global warming.
. . . .
"I hope it will help him," Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said of the award. "Obama is the right man at the right time, and that's why we want to enhance his efforts." Ref: Analysis: A great prize, but will it help goals?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091010/ap_on_an/us_obama_nobel_analysis


I think it extraordinarily bad precedent to award the prize in hopes of future action that may or may not occur or be successful. Everyone should be working towards the "fraternity of humanity", but certainly some work harder at it than others, even putting their lives on the line to establish peace or justice or goodwill . . . .

[arildno]

This is the work of Mr. Jagland, who not only was appointed to the Comittee this year, but was straight ahead made Chairman (VERY unusual in the history of the Comittee).

While the comittee members generally have been politicians, they have tended to be RETIRED politicians, or who have primarily made their names outside of politics.
(In the 50's the chairman was Gunnar Jahn, a top-notch economist, and in the 1990's, Francis Sejersted, primarily known as a professional historian).

Thus, the prize has been unfortunately politicized, and the strong ties Mr. Jagland has with our current Prime Minister shows that the Labour Party has descended to the level of augmenting its own prestige by "forcing" Mr. Obama to come to Oslo by awarding him the Nobel Prize and make the hosts proud of themselves..

[russ_watters]

These threads have been moving far too fast for me to make much of a useful contribution, but I was also surprised by the physics prize being awarded for decades-old inventions.

[russ_watters]

Jimmy Carter is an interesting case too: Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/11/carter.nobel/index.html

[arildno]

These threads have been moving far too fast for me to make much of a useful contribution, but I was also surprised by the physics prize being awarded for decades-old inventions.

The Peace Prize is, in accordance with the will of Alfred Nobel, to be awarded by a committee of 5 members appointed on six-year terms by the Norwegian Parliament, and is not in any way institutionally related to the Swedish Academy that deals out the other prizes.

[waht]

more mishaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies

[TheStatutoryApe]

Comments from Nobel committee members revealed that they fully intended to encourage, not reward. Consider this: The nomination deadline was only 12 days after Obama first entered the Oval Office. It's an enduring myth that the prize is only about accomplishment — it actually was created as much to supply momentum for peace as to celebrate it.
This seems a bit silly. I am quite certain that a major reason for the prize is to encourage but I have always seen it as encouraging further work by someone who has shown a capacity to accomplish their aims.
edit: They may as well give one to Kim Jong Il to encourage him to not be a petty dictator.

I was a bit surprised by this but not much really. So many people seem to be truly "taken" with the man. I like him myself. Things like this though just seem to reinforce the 'messiah' image that Rush and the like attribute to Obama. It even made me think of the people who think that he is the anti-christ who will supposedly be loved by all the world. Maybe I should start building a shelter before 2012 gets here.


Nice title by the way Arildno. :wink:

[Astronuc]

I am quite certain that a major reason for the prize is to encourage but I have always seen it as encouraging further work by someone who has shown a capacity to accomplish their aims. I am afraid with logic such as encouraging further or rather future work, one might imagine that the Peace Prize could be awarded Osama bin Laden and/or al Qaida if they state that they have decided 'not to attack' the US or other nations/peoples. :uhh:

I'd like to see bin Laden and al Qaida (and Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, . . . . ) disarm and renounce violence - but I'm not holding my breath.

[Pinu7]

The Peace Prize is, in accordance with the will of Alfred Nobel, to be awarded by a committee of 5 members appointed on six-year terms by the Norwegian Parliament, and is not in any way institutionally related to the Swedish Academy that deals out the other prizes.

Yeah, but Nobel willed that his other prizes(including the one for Physics) should be awarded within a year of discovery. However, the committees have disobeyed this rule only awarding the prize to those scientists with noncontroversial contributions to enhance their own "prestige" instead of those scientists ,that actually deserve it, sooner.

[arildno]

Yeah, but Nobel willed that his other prizes(including the one for Physics) should be awarded within a year of discovery. However, the committees have disobeyed this rule only awarding the prize to those scientists with noncontroversial contributions to enhance their own "prestige" instead of those scientists ,that actually deserve it, sooner.

Having looked a bit, I found the following excerpt of the will here:
The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

This holds for all prize winners, including th Peace Prize.

That the one-year limit is not very practical is quite another matter.

[Vanadium 50]

Jimmy Carter is an interesting case too:

Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq."


I remember that. I also remember thinking at the time that Carter had every right to be furious and to tell the Nobel committee where they could stick their prize, but he's too much the gentleman for that. Just look at it from his perspective: "We don't really think you've earned this on your own, but we wanted to use your prize as a method of political criticism directed at someone else."

[Hans de Vries]

I've seldom seen a Nobel price decision so warmly embraced by both right wing
and left wing world leaders alike:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2385339&postcount=52

So where is all the decline and fall?


The decision is simply a reinforcements of the man's ideas and attitudes which
made a change for the better in the network of global political relationships.
Apparently they simply like it, agree with it and see him as a positive factor.

What makes me happy is the reaction of all these politicians and that again
gives me a bit of hope and it reassures me that the decision was right.
The Nobel price as a support, or "call to action", being embraced by global
leadership means that it's embraced as a "call to action" by them all and for
them all and that is what makes me happy.

So, and now you can all go on with the nitpicking.....


Regards, Hans

[arildno]

He hasn't done anything as yet, Hans.

That is the trouble.

The "improved climate" obamamaniacs blather about is their own sense of empowerment, i.e, it is an expression of their personal fantasies, not of realities forged by Mr. Obama.

Furthermore, what else could leaders of countries like Angel Merkel do than congratulate Mr. Obama?

Should they have said "he didn't deserve it"?

Heard about..diplomatic repercussions?


This is just like the fairy tale by H.C Andersen, "The emperor's new clothes":

All the courtiers and responsible adults clap their hands admiringly, praising the fine, almost translucent qualities of the emperor's new clothing.

Only the little child behaves irresponsibly, namely by shouting out: "Why is the emperor walking about nude??"

[humanino]

He hasn't done anything as yet, Hans.That is your appreciation, not the one of the people you criticize but who, as a matter of fact, attributed this prize.

Again, I am fascinated how people forget. The human mind adapts so easily to new paradigms. It is more than about time for politicians all over the world, not only in the US but also in Europe and everywhere else, to go back from the politics of fear to the politics of hope. I found it interesting that the very same week, one of the most popular video is a BBC documentary on the "politics of nightmares".

This being said, the recipient himself commented quite appropriately on his prize.

[OmCheeto]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm

Yoiu forgot to include the reaction of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. :biggrin:

And Rush (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563503,00.html):

Gore, Carter, Obama, soon Bill Clinton. You see a pattern here, folks? Liberal sellouts! Liberal sellouts get this prize. George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims, Ronald Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans, saves parts of Latin America. Any awards? No, just derision. Obama gives speeches trashing his own country -- and he gets a prize for it.

IMHO, if Limbaugh and the Taliban are on the same page, I'm all for Obama getting the prize.

Of course, I went over to Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/10/2009109152410715115.html) to see what they had to say and found the quote by Ahmadinejad's aide:

the award should prompt Obama to begin to end injustice in the world.

While in the side column, a headline reads: Death sentences for Iran protesters

Anyone want to wager how long this young lady would have lived if she'd tried this in Iran with a picture of the grand Ayatollah?

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/08/19/1250735669_5488/539w.jpg

Oddly enough, the best explanation, and why I support the decision of Obama receiving the prize, was from the same web page as the Rush comment, Fox News! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563503,00.html)


But I think Obama's is unusual in how young he is. He's a 48-year-old man. And I thought about it some today, and I think you have to really think about it more in the terms of Martin Luther King. He won a Nobel Peace Prize at 35 years old, right in 1964, before the historic Civil Rights legislation of '65. And King was at that point 35. He had his whole career ahead of him. So it was kind of an award to encourage King to continue fighting for Civil Rights.

And I think Barack Obama's is to encourage him pushing, particularly as the Nobel committee mentioned, to abolish classifications of nuclear weapons and to continue the Cairo speech, where he's seeming to put an olive branch out between Christians and Israel and the Muslim world.

Keep pushing Mr. President. And congratulations.

Om

[arildno]

to go back from the politics of fear to the politics of hope.
Not as long as the real culprits behind "the politics of nightmare" are as busy plotting destruction and acts of terrorism as they've always been.

To shut your eyes against that reality is to commit suicide.

[WhoWee]

And Rush (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563503,00.html):
IMHO, if Limbaugh and the Taliban are on the same page, I'm all for Obama getting the prize.

Of course, I went over to Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/10/2009109152410715115.html) to see what they had to say and found the quote by Ahmadinejad's aide:
While in the side column, a headline reads:
Anyone want to wager how long this young lady would have lived if she'd tried this in Iran with a picture of the grand Ayatollah?

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2009/08/19/1250735669_5488/539w.jpg

Oddly enough, the best explanation, and why I support the decision of Obama receiving the prize, was from the same web page as the Rush comment, Fox News! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563503,00.html)

Keep pushing Mr. President. And congratulations.
Om

How does making this about Rush Limbaugh (comparing Rush to the Taliban?:rofl:), Fox news, and a woman with a sign demonstrate that Obama deserves to receive the award at this time? If anything, the Ahmadinejad comments demonstrates the problems this award will cause Obama in the future - you might do better to think of it as a ring in his nose.

[Hans de Vries]

Furthermore, what else could leaders of countries like Angel Merkel do than congratulate Mr. Obama?

Should they have said "he didn't deserve it"?

Heard about..diplomatic repercussions?


Ok, the comments then of German right wing leader Angela Merkel as an example:


ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR

I would like to congratulate President Obama on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a short time he has established a new tone, creating a willingness for dialogue
and I think we all should support him to make peace in this world possible. There is
a lot do but a window of opportunity has been opened. His advocacy of a world free
of nuclear arms is an aim we all need to make real in the next few years. Again,
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American
president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.


She literally says (very explicitly) what I'm talking about. This has nothing
to do with congratulations out of fear for diplomatic repercussions. and yes,
I do read between the lines about this specific subject, don't worry.


Regards, Hans

[humanino]

Not as long as the real culprits behind "the politics of nightmare" are as busy plotting destruction and acts of terrorism as they've always been.

To shut your eyes against that reality is to commit suicide.There is a vicious circle and a virtuous circle. There was a time when both sides were religious fanatics. The proper way to fight religious fanatics begins with not using qualifiers such as "good" and "evil".

[arildno]

And why should the Peace Prize be misused to give overambitious Norwegian politicians the feeling of affecting current world policy??

[OmCheeto]

How does making this about Rush Limbaugh (comparing Rush to the Taliban?:rofl:),
They are the only two recognizable entities which opposed the vote. Everyone else just couldn't understand it. Including myself.
, Fox news,
I've never been a fan of Fox News, and found it ironic that they should post anything so blatantly pro-Obama. Perhaps they are fair and balanced, but we never realized it because no one can get past the 3 minutes of Rush's hate speak.
and a woman with a sign demonstrate
Points out that Ahmadinejad is a hypocrite.
that Obama deserves to receive the award at this time?
As I said, Brinkley's comment swayed me to my decision.
If anything, the Ahmadinejad comments demonstrates the problems this award will cause Obama in the future - you might do better to think of it as a ring in his nose.
No it doesn't. It just shows Nejad to be a hypocrite. He needs to clean up his own house before telling Barack what to do.
If anything, the award, and the support of major world leaders, gives Obama the go ahead with his diabolical plans to create a better world.

ring in his nose, my a**........

[Cyrus]

When I went to the capital I saw a protestor standing on the street corner with a picture of Obama like Hitler. I called him a Jackass to his face and walked away. What a disrespectful moron.

[Pattonias]

To compare Rush Limbaugh to the Tali ban simply because they are both happen to think that Obama should not have gotten the award is ridiculous. Over sixty percent of the world seems to think its too early, but because Limbaugh said it out loud and he is on radio they must be in league. Don't worry though Al Jazeera will set it all right. They certainly won't try and push any particular bias agenda.

[russ_watters]

I've seldom seen a Nobel price decision so warmly embraced by both right wing
and left wing world leaders alike:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2385339&postcount=52
Which of those are right wing...?
So where is all the decline and fall? What does that list of world leaders' comments have to do with whether there is a "decline and fall"?

[russ_watters]

I remember that. I also remember thinking at the time that Carter had every right to be furious and to tell the Nobel committee where they could stick their prize, but he's too much the gentleman for that. Just look at it from his perspective: "We don't really think you've earned this on your own, but we wanted to use your prize as a method of political criticism directed at someone else." You like Carter - I don't. To me, I wouldn't expect him to be furious, nor would I consider him being a "gentleman" for accepting an award that amounts to a mutual back-scratch.

[russ_watters]

They are the only two recognizable entities which opposed the vote. Everyone else just couldn't understand it. You're kidding, right?

Of course world leaders are mostly going to congratulate him - they have to, it's politics! But commentators from all sides are coming out of the woodwork in saying it was premature. You don't need to read Rush Limbaugh to find it - I bet you can find prominently on every major news source! Try CNN: Praise and skepticism greet Obama's Nobel Peace Prize http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/obama.nobel.international.reaction/index.html

USA Today There was also some non-partisan perplexity from political analysts who wondered how a leader in office less than a year could have won one of the world's most prestigious prizes. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-09-obama-nobel-reaction_N.htm

And for many, I suspect "couldn't understand it" is just a soft way of saying it wasn't right.

Heck, Obama doesn't even believe he deserved it! [CBS News:] Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/09/politics/main5374237.shtml?tag=stack

Don't worry, though: I'm sure there will be plenty of polls asking if people believe he deserved it, so we can find out for sure what the general reaction was.

[OmCheeto]

To compare Rush Limbaugh to the Tali ban simply because they are both happen to think that Obama should not have gotten the award is ridiculous.
I suppose, but I didn't set out to make the comparison. My researching of world opinion simply pointed this fact out.
Over sixty percent of the world seems to think its too early
Even this Nobel Peace Prize winner (http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzJjMDM0ODEwZjZkOWZkN2ExNmYyYzIyMGQxYTQ2NmQ=):

Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast — he hasn't had the time to do anything yet,
I suppose Lech is the only person on the planet actually qualified to say such a thing.

, but because Limbaugh said it out loud and he is on radio they must be in league.
Nope. But pointing out faux alliance's can be fun.
Don't worry though Al Jazeera will set it all right. They certainly won't try and push any particular bias agenda.
That's what I've surprisingly come to the determination of, that they don't.

[OmCheeto]

You're kidding, right?
No. But I've not heard what Kim Jong Il said about it. So there might be 3 vocal opponents.
And then there's Hamas (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929393,00.html). They didn't like it: 4.

I suppose I was a bit presumptuous saying no one understood the decision. I certainly didn't understand it. But it makes sense to me now.

[Hurkyl]

Of course world leaders are mostly going to congratulate him - they have to, it's politics!
And that's an unfortunate thing. There should be repercussions for our elected representatives to go along with this farce.

[OmCheeto]

Don't worry, though: I'm sure there will be plenty of polls asking if people believe he deserved it, so we can find out for sure what the general reaction was.

Ugh. I do not have time to read all 6,789,651,131 Tom, Dick, and Harry's opinions on the matter. I was supposed to be at the coast an hour ago. Please have someone have the graphs and pie charts ready when I get back tomorrow. Ciao.

[Hans de Vries]

Which of those are right wing...?


you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR


and as left wing:

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER
YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER


Regards, Hans

[arildno]

you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR



Why?

Because everyone you speak to says so, Hans?

Do you even have a criterion to distinguish between "right-wing" and "left-wing"?

[Count Iblis]

The views of most European rightwingers are more similar to US Democrats than Republicans.

[Hans de Vries]

Why?

Because everyone you speak to says so, Hans?

Do you even have a criterion to distinguish between "right-wing" and "left-wing"?

There are decades of political party histories, known to those who actively follow
international politics, but you can also simply Google for yourself...


Regards, Hans.

[arildno]

I didn't say I don't have a working concept of what "right-wing" or "left-wing" means, Hans.

But on basis of your rambling posts, I have serious doubts if you have, or ever have had, any such concept.

That's why I asked you.

[humanino]

Why?

Because everyone you speak to says so, Hans?

Do you even have a criterion to distinguish between "right-wing" and "left-wing"? arildno knows better (who they should choose) than the Nobel peace prize committee and also better (whether they themselves classify left or right) than the most important political professionals in the world.

I realize we should have awarded all Nobel prizes to arildno !

[Hans de Vries]

The views of most European rightwingers are more similar to US Democrats than Republicans.

Both right wing and left wing politicians have become more moderate over
the years. Conservatives are lot less nationalist and xenophobic as the were
in the past in Europe, mostly because they speak enough languages nowadays
to communicate with each other....


Regards, Hans

[arildno]

arildno knows better (who they should choose) than the Nobel peace prize committee

Certainly.
Because I happen to know what individuals make up that committee. You don't.
and also better (whether they themselves classify left or right) than the most important political professionals in the world.
So Hans de Vries is a professional politician?

Doesn't surprise me, really..

[humanino]

So Hans de Vries is a professional politician?I do not believe Hans is a professional politician.
you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLORWhy?I now that Sarkozy, Merkel and Rasmussen are professional politicians and classify themselves (centre-)right.

[Hans de Vries]

I do not believe Hans is a professional politician.
No thanks :smile:, just an active observer...
I now that Sarkozy, Merkel and Rasmussen are professional politicians and classify themselves (centre-)right.

and that's what counts, just like how their political parties classify themselves
and how their voters classify themselves.

Regards, Hans

[arildno]

I know that Sarkozy, Merkel and Rasmussen are professional politicians and classify themselves (centre-)right

And when did (centre-)right become right-WING, dears? :smile:

[WhoWee]

No it doesn't. It just shows Nejad to be a hypocrite. He needs to clean up his own house before telling Barack what to do.
If anything, the award, and the support of major world leaders, gives Obama the go ahead with his diabolical plans to create a better world.

ring in his nose, my a**........

Time will tell. I think giving him the award now is a brilliant way to control him.

He is now going to have his feet held to the fire for EVERY promise he's ever made. He will also be expected to live up to the Award on the world wide stage. However, he must also put the national interests of the US in front of other interests. This may be the "test" that VP Biden was talking about.

[f95toli]

And when did (centre-)right become right-WING, dears? :smile:

When the royalist in France ended up sittting on right side of the chamber?

Why is is that so many people seem to think that the right wing is the same as the New Right in the US? The latter has only been around for about 30 years and so and doesn't even "fit" on the normal poltical spectrum.

All conservative and liberal politicans belong to the right wing of politics, and a christian-democratic conservative party as Merkel's CDU is most certainly a right-wing party.
"Right-wing" doesn't mean "far right" any more than left-wing means "communist" (or even socialist), it just means right of the centre.
Both e.g Hoyre and Fremskrittspartiet in Norway are definitly right-wing parties (and the latter are quite far right by European standards).

[russ_watters]

Ugh. I do not have time to read all 6,789,651,131 Tom, Dick, and Harry's opinions on the matter. I was supposed to be at the coast an hour ago. Please have someone have the graphs and pie charts ready when I get back tomorrow. Ciao.
So, what you're saying is that the only opinions that matter to you are those of world leaders, who for reasons of political expedience must not come out against it? Talk about confirmation bias! Jeez!

[russ_watters]

you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR


and as left wing:

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER
YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER


Regards, Hans Have you considered that to a Scandanavian, much of the world communtiy is to the right of center? To an American, I doubt any of those could be considered right of center - much less "right wing"!

According to the wiki on her, Merkel is "center right", Sarkozy's party is "center right" and the General...well, he's a general in a military alliance.

But I suppose to someone far out on the left wing, someone near the center would appear "right wing".

[russ_watters]

"Right-wing" doesn't mean "far right" any more than left-wing means "communist" (or even socialist), it just means right of the centre. Well perhaps this is just a definitions problem - in the US, "right wing" tends to be used synonomously with "far right".

[humanino]

the only opinions that matter to you are those of world leadersYes indeed, that's obvious. Also, if you have forgotten, for instance France has not hesitated to stand up against your government in the past.

[humanino]

But I suppose to someone far out on the left wing, someone near the center would appear "right wing".Yes indeed, that is a matter of perception. But in this discussion, the perception of american citizens is not so relevant : the reason Obama was chosen is because of his contributions to international politics, which american media barely know even exist.

[f95toli]

Well perhaps this is just a definitions problem - in the US, "right wing" tends to be used synonomously with "far right".

Yes, I realize that; but historically that is incorrect and it is not what "right wing" means in Europe or -as far as I know- anywhere else in the world.
The difference in meaning is presumably simply a consequence of the fact that US politics is essentially liberal and therefore falls on the right on the political spectrum.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes indeed, that's obvious. Also, if you have forgotten, for instance France has not hesitated to stand up against your government in the past.

We are talking about praise though. Specifically praise going to a praise worthy individual. While one may not agree with the extent of the praise it would not be very politik to argue the praise. It would be like having a person say "I have the most beautiful child in the world" and responding "Well its certainly cute but its no Adonis." It may have worked for Churchill, but... well he was Churchill.

[humanino]

We are talking about praise though.If they were strongly opposed, silence would have been quite appropriate. Besides, one can (as Hans suggested) read between the linescongratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.And Obama himself has made it straightforwardly clear what he himself thinks about his prize.

[Astronuc]

In all fairness to Obama, he had it thrust on him. I'm sure he didn't see it coming. So hopefully he lives up to expectations - and perhaps exceeds expectations in the global diplomatic arena.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee is another matter, as are the behaviors of other world leaders.

Here it is 2009 and we're repeating the same behavior that's been going on for - well since recorded history and before.

The world seems be trapped in a perpetual cycle of violence and aggression.


And what have you done lately to change that?

[WhoWee]

And what have you done lately to change that?

An interesting thing happened on the way home from my son's football game. My youngest daughter noticed a small dog rolling around in the busy street (dead animal on road) - then I noticed a little boy running towards the dog (crying). I stopped my vehicle (blocking traffic) and quickly removed both the boy and the dog from traffic. In spite of the situation, everyone in the cars/trucks I stopped appeared to be angry.

Then (of course) the boy's mother came running out and thought I was trying to do something bad to the boy (???). LUCKILY , someone explained my actions to the distraught mother.

As we drove away, my daughter commented that we should have just kept driving.

I wanted to be a smart arse, but instead I spent the next hour explaining why we would do it all again- that we did the right thing and that's what counts.

[WhoWee]

I've noticed something of a trend with awards. If you HAVE to make a choice - sometimes there aren't any deserving parties - other times you might have to choose between 2 excellent choices.

Maybe prestigious awards should only be given when deserved, not because of a date on a calendar?

[Evo]

Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

[lisab]

I've noticed something of a trend with awards. If you HAVE to make a choice - sometimes there aren't any deserving parties - other times you might have to choose between 2 excellent choices.

Maybe prestigious awards should only be given when deserved, not because of a date on a calendar?

I agree, WhoWee. But is it really true that there is such a dearth of deserving candidates, the award can't be given every year?

How about Greg Mortenson? A guy who builds schools for girls...in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has an amazing bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson), really exceptional. You might even say deserving.

[WhoWee]

Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

I think Obama did the right thing in accepting the award and saying he hadn't yet earned it. They've put him in a very difficult position - a classic rock and a hard place.

Hopefully he'll be able to wave it around when negotiating with the "difficult states" and tell them the world expects them to work things out. (I'm a businessman - I look for the leverage in every deal)

[TheStatutoryApe]

If they were strongly opposed, silence would have been quite appropriate. Besides, one can (as Hans suggested) read between the lines
Note the rest of what I posted. I did not suggest that they were "strongly opposed" in which case I think the appropriate response would have been to say so.

And Obama himself has made it straightforwardly clear what he himself thinks about his prize.
Yes, he pretty much said that he does not deserve it but that he will accept it any way, though in a more politik fashion. Which is Russ's whole point, as far as I can tell, that these politicians are simply reacting (publicly) in the most polite and politically correct manner they can.

Considering what he said about Kanye in private I can only imagine what Obama may have said about the Peace Prize committee.

[arildno]

Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

Already well over 30 years ago, a perceptive previous prime minister of Norway, Trygve Bratteli, characterized the young Jagland as "dangerous".

Because Bratteli thought him to be a well-meaning idiot with loads of ambition.

[Vanadium 50]

I agree, WhoWee. But is it really true that there is such a dearth of deserving candidates, the award can't be given every year?

The Nobel committee has skipped awarding the Peace Prize several times - for example, during WW1 and WW2, and most recently in 1972.

[arildno]

According to this list, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

the years in which the Peace Prize was not awarded were:

1914-16,1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939-1943, 1948, 1955-56, 1966-67 and 1972.

[Astronuc]

How about Greg Mortenson? A guy who builds schools for girls...in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has an amazing bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson), really exceptional. You might even say deserving. Absolutely! So write to Obama or head of state in one's nation, and one's national legislature representative (e.g., Congress person, Senator, . . . ) and request that they nominate Greg Mortenson for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 (or until he receives the award) for his "humanitarian work and advocation of literacy in neglected areas of the world", specifically N. Pakistan and Afghanistan. His organization, Central Asia Institute, is also looking at project in Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. CAI sponsors schools and teachers to educate both boys and girls up to at least grade 5. The schools are built by the local people/community who have a vested interest in education and literacy of their children. In addition, CAI sponsors health centers/clinics and women's centers.

www.ikat.org - one can also donate here.
https://www.ikat.org/projects/cai-programs/
https://www.ikat.org/projects/regional-map/ - showing where programs are in place

Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack has been a long time supporter of Mortenson, and she and 4 other congresspersons publicly stated their nomination of Mortenson for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[arildno]

Another worthy candidate would have been Messaoud Boulkheir, who for 40 years has campaigned against ongoing slavery in Mauretania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messaoud_Ould_Boulkheir

[Astronuc]

Another worthy candidate would have been Messaoud Boulkheir, who for 40 years has campaigned against ongoing slavery in Mauretania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messaoud_Ould_Boulkheir Certainly a much better choice than say Al Gore and IPCC.

There are many others who seem to go unnoticed.

[humanino]

GMJuEOaF84o

[mheslep]

you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR...By EU standards maybe, not by US standards.

[humanino]

By EU standards maybe, not by US standards.Yes, and the Nobel committee indeed acts by EU standards, not by US standards.

[Moonbear]

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:

That's what it seems like. A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.

I agree with the sentiments that he should decline it. He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere. If he accomplishes any of his goals, they can award it later when it's been earned.

[humanino]

A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?

[russ_watters]

GMJuEOaF84o Obama soundes genuinely and appropriately incredulous.

And I know this isn't one of our many Fox news threads, but shouldn't there be some irony in MSNBC replaying Foxnews clips so much? Or at least shouldn't there be some royalties in it for Fox?

[russ_watters]

Yes, and the Nobel committee indeed acts by EU standards, not by US standards. Well, no, the Nobel committee acts by Norwegian standards. It has been my perception that Norway is to the left of center for Europe.

[russ_watters]

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:That's what it seems like. A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.
A bowl of mashed potatoes can't openly criticize Bush, but yeah, after that, the list gets pretty long. Regardless, since Carter won his peace prize for the same thing, it makes you wonder just how many people can earn a peace prize for the same thing! I agree with the sentiments that he should decline it. He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere. If he accomplishes any of his goals, they can award it later when it's been earned. Europeans like him and that's fine - I get it, they felt marginalized and ignored by Bush. But making speeches and talking a good game in your opening tour isn't something worthy of an award. Yeah, I know this is getting repetitive, but oh well: the award is suppoosed to be given for accomplishments and he's accomplished nothing yet (on the "peace" front).

[Evo]

Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?Whoa, lighten up!

I may not always agree with Moonbear, but I know what she's saying here. Obama, even by his own words, does not diserve this award.

I voted for Obama, and I still have hope that he can achieve some of the things he promised. To be honest, Obama is in office because people feared Palin. A lot of influential Republicans came out near the end saying that they could not back Palin, she was just too crazy. If McCain had chosen a viable vice president, it's very likley that Obama would have lost. It was that close.

Obama should have turned down the award. His speech saying that "I am not qualified or deserving, but I'm going to take it anyway" was appalling, IMO. He lost my respect. Unless he manages to pull something big out of his a$$ in the next few years, this is going to bite him in the butt in the next election.

[russ_watters]

I'm wondering where George HW Bush's and Ronald Reagan's peace prizes are. Reagan's carrot-and-stick approach helped end the cold war. Bush pulled together an unprecidented international coalition (which included Russia!) to kick Iraq out of Kuwait and helped finalize a treaty that cut the worlds' nuclear weapons count in half.

[Hurkyl]

Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?
What is to be gained by playing along with the farce? The prize committee has overspent whatever political capital they might have had as dispensers of a prize allegedly recognizing achievement -- they've earned their mockery.

[humanino]

What is to be gained by playing along with the farce?What is to be lost in failing to support a Nobel peace prize recipient ?
What if the most influential nation lets their best (for the rest of the world at least) outcome in a decade down ?

[Hurkyl]

What is to be lost in failing to support a Nobel peace prize recipient ?
:confused:

I just want to be clear here -- you do realize that the primary focus of this thread is to condemn the Nobel prize committee for their appalling behavior?

Sure, there has been some criticism of world leaders going along with it, Obama has received some sympathy for having been put in a difficult position and some criticism for accepting -- but these are tangential to the central topic in this thread.

[humanino]

you do realize that the primary focus of this thread is to condemn the Nobel prize committee for their appalling behavior?Is that so ?He lost my respect.

[CRGreathouse]

The Nobel Peace Prize would have lost my respect if I had any respect for it. But Obama's acceptance doesn't bother me; it's a 'rock-and-hard-place' situation for him.

[OmCheeto]

I think Alfred (http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html) would have approved of the nomination and award:




I, the undersigned, Alfred Bernhard Nobel, do hereby, after mature deliberation, declare the following to be my last Will and Testament with respect to such property as may be left by me at the time of my death:

...

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows:

...

and one part 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.

I really don't think a bowl of mashed potatoes, people who promote schools, anyone who isn't Bush, San Francisco, nor Fred the dog qualify.

[russ_watters]

I suppose you're right: he would have approved of the award if the other nominees were a bowl of mashed potatoes or Fred the Dog. But I tend to doubt he would have approved of Obama over someone who has actually done something.

Either way, it's a pretty sad state the world political community is in if "the most or best" is someone who thus far has done nothing beyond give a handful of speeches! Is it any wonder the US is the political leader of the world, when that's all it takes?!

[arildno]

Brenner in NY Times has a ready-made acceptance speech for Obama to be delivered the 10. of December.

In this speech, Obama may reflect of the fact that he has been "thorbjorned":
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11brenner.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[arildno]

What is to be lost in failing to support a Nobel peace prize recipient ?
What if the most influential nation lets their best (for the rest of the world at least) outcome in a decade down ?

Well, tell that to the Copts in Egypt.

Obama had a golden chance in Cairo this year to condemn the then-ongoing harassment of the Copts, where the livelihoods of many were stripped away by the Government's insane decision to kill off all the pigs in the country.

You might also ask why the US Government has recently pressured the Armenians to make a treaty with Turkey without Turkey being pressured to recognize the massacres of Armenians under the late Ottoman Empire.

[Hepth]

Just to play devil's advocate, if not President Obama, who else "during the preceding year" has "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." in your opinion?

Again, I'm not agreeing with their decision, but is there someone else who was nominated that you believe should have won?

I ask this merely to broaden my knowledge of who was in the running and what they have accomplished. (AGAIN, not that Obama has accomplished all that much)

[Office_Shredder]

Of course that's a trick question Hepth, because the list of nominees is not released until at least 50 years after the prize is given out :p

[Ivan Seeking]

I wish to congratulate the Nobel committee for their inspired and insightful decision to award President Obama this prestigious award. Never before have we seen a political leader who can inspire the people of all nations as Obama has. But more than that, Obama changed the wayward course of the most powerful nation on earth virtually overnight. His first act was to reach out to all people of the world. He made it clear that we offer and open hand rather than a clenched fist. He changed the tone of the global conversation in order to create an atmosphere in which peace is possible.

Obama has ended the use of torture and closed the CIA’s secret prisons. He is also working hard to close Guantanamo. Through these acts he demonstrates that America is not hopelessly lost; that once again we will strive to meet the standards of decency that we expect not only of ourselves, but of all nations. He spoke honestly and earnestly to the people of the Middle East and admitted that we have made mistakes. He dropped the self-righteous pretense that the US in infallible. He showed the world that we are willing to change. He also made it clear that all nations bear the burden of history; that we must all admit to our faults and move on.

The significance of these acts alone cannot be overstated. Under Bush we showed the world that we are a nation of fear and reactionaries. We showed that we are to be feared, not trusted. We showed that even invading a country on false pretense carries no liability. We showed that we are reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous.

The Nobel committee clearly recognizes that in order for peace to be possible on any number of fronts, the US must be engaged as a trusted member of the global community. They also recognize that as a once-in-a-lifetime leader, Obama’s efforts will be well-served though this special recognition. While Obama hasn’t yet parted the Red Sea or walked on water, no reasonable person expected that he could change the world overnight. However, through his dedication and brilliance, during his two terms of office he will almost certainly change the world in ways that are profound and lasting.

A number of people have been mentioned who may be worthy of this award. But along with deeds and desires of individuals is the global significance of their efforts. Perhaps someone working to bring peace to some little corner of the world is deserving of a Nobel Prize, but the significance of their efforts is limited in the global sense. Clearly this matters or an award would be given every year. Obama has the potential to affect all people of all nations. He has the ability to change the world and he is working hard to do so. For this reason he cannot be compared to all who work for change and peace. He is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. For this reason, Obama matters more than the others mentioned.

So in recognition for what Obama has done and for what he is working to do, I applaud this award whole heartedly. I also applaud the Nobel committee for recognizing greatness. But I think the Nobel committee did miss the target. I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.

[arildno]

He made it clear that we offer and open hand rather than a clenched fist.
Did he offer that open hand to the Copts, who had their livelihoods destroyed by a bigoted Egyptian government?

[cristo]

While Obama hasn’t yet parted the Red Sea or walked on water, no reasonable person expected that he could change the world overnight. However, through his dedication and brilliance, during his two terms of office he will almost certainly change the world in ways that are profound and lasting.

So now you're calling comparing Obama to a god? Wow! Sure, he seems a good leader, but all the things you mention that he's done thus far are things that any other leader of a western democracy would do. The US should not have allowed secret torture prisons in the first place. Giving him a nobel prize to close them should be accompanied with giving nobel prizes to leaders of every other democratic country for not opening them in the first place.

So in recognition for what Obama has done and for what he is working to do, I applaud this award whole heartedly. I also applaud the Nobel committee for recognizing greatness. But I think the Nobel committee did miss the target. I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.

There were far more deserving candidates, some who actually endured a risk to their life to try and avert evil, who were overlooked. It's quite clear that this was a political award!

Sorry Ivan, but your post comes across as that of an American who believes that his country is the centre of the world-- it is not. As for congratulating 'yourselves', well, that's just amazingly vain!

[mheslep]

...He is also working hard to close Guantanamo...That's rename (to Bagram AFB (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111855836)), not close.

[mheslep]

...The significance of these acts alone cannot be overstated...Yes it is difficult, but you should not be deterred; someone must try to overstate none the less. If adjectives won't get 'er done, perhaps try linking in some background tunes (http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Classical/Romantic-Period/Entry-of-the-Gods-into-Valhalla-from-Das-Rheingold/281712).

[OmCheeto]

I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.

Dreadful idea Ivan. Even limiting us to 30 seconds apiece, it would take over 66 years to get through all the acceptance speeches. Not to mention the administrative costs of us each donating our 2 cents to charity would probably run into the trillions. :tongue2:

[Count Iblis]

He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere.

Obama has done a lot. Perhaps it is because the Americans don't care about the relevant issues that they don't see this. E.g.:

1) An unprecendented move toward nuclear disarmement has been made. For many many years the US rejected such suggestions. This makes it possible to strengthen the NPT.


2) The US has reset relations with Russia and China. The US will not boss these countries around by exploiting other issues. E.g. the missile shield in Poland has been scrapped for pragmatic reasons. The Bush administration always made it clear that it was meant against the Iranian missile threat, yet when Obama scrapped it because that threat wil not materialize anytime soon, the criticism against this decision from the Right was that the US has now lost a pawn against Russia that the US could have used to make Russia vote "the right way" in the UNSC.


3) Point 2) means that the US sees Russia and China as equal partners in solving World problems diplomatically. E.g., in case of Iran, the US will participate on he basis of the commonly agreed principle that Iran should not produce nuclear weapons. The US will not persue its own domestic agenda of imposing more restrictions on Iran. E.g. Obama has stopped talking about this issue like Bush did: "Iran must stop to enrich uranium". Instead Iran is now invited to make the proposals itself that will allow the World to verify that their program is peaceful.

This makes a war against Iran extremely unlikely if Iran is not persuing nuclear weapons. The dynamics that led to the Iraq war that were at play here are gone. Under the Bush admistration, war against Iran was a likely outcome regardless of whether or not Iran had a nuclear weapons program, because Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium.


These are such huge things that you would almost forget some "lesser results" that in their own right would be worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, such as:


4) Armenia and Turkey signed a peace deal after US brokered mediations.

[arildno]

Obama has done a lot. Perhaps it is because the Americans don't care about the relevant issues that they don't see this. E.g.:

1) An unprecendented move toward nuclear disarmement has been made. For many many years the US rejected such suggestions. This makes it possible to strengthen the NPT.
Exceedingly naive.

The Cold War powers were highly effective in preventing nuclear proliferation to other countries.

Our problem today is precisely uncontrolled nuclear proliferation to a variety of unstable regimes. There is no longer any USSR to have gradual, controlled de-armament policies with, but the danger of proliferation has increased, not decreased, and uni-lateral de-armament is not an effective strategy on this point.



4) Armenia and Turkey signed a peace deal after US brokered mediations.

Forced down the throat of the Armenians, rather, since Turkey wasn't required to make any concessions whatsoever in even recognizing the massacres on Armenians by the late Ottoman empire.


Just to highlight two of your points whose merits are highly debatable.

[Sorry!]

I honestly don't see it happening at any point in the future that any country with nuclear weapons will destroy them all. I just don't think it's plausible that a country will do that.

[arildno]

Perhaps the Turkish leadership didn't want to be on the evening news being accused of "trashing their own country", which simply admitting the truth nowadays seems to get you.


And why was the US government so insistent that the ARMENIANS should engage in yet another act of self-humiliation?

[OmCheeto]

And why was the US government so insistent that the ARMENIANS should engage in yet another act of self-humiliation?

What was the first act of self-humiliation? Or did the Armenians back then volunteer to be slaughtered?

That's ok if you don't know the answer. I'll ask my friend Vlad, he's from Armenia, and claims to know about such things.

[Count Iblis]

Exceedingly naive.

The Cold War powers were highly effective in preventing nuclear proliferation to other countries.

Our problem today is precisely uncontrolled nuclear proliferation to a variety of unstable regimes. There is no longer any USSR to have gradual, controlled de-armament policies with, but the danger of proliferation has increased, not decreased, and uni-lateral de-armament is not an effective strategy on this point.


Naive or not, the focus of the Nobel Peace Prize is to reward behavior consistent with living in a peaceful World. If the concept of a peaceful world in which the peace is not coerced by one or more superpowers is "naive", then that's a criticism of the concept of peace as the Nobel Comittee understands it.

[Hurkyl]

Sigh. At least it was nice to see unity for a day or two.

[Count Iblis]

Leading Cuban dissidents cheer Obama's Nobel prize (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jOSU7Ew6j4vlEn0d_L0eXG0A1w1gD9B9M09G0)

(AP) – 38 minutes ago

HAVANA — Many of the 75 activists jailed in a 2003 Cuban government crackdown on political dissent are congratulating Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a letter released Monday to international journalists, 29 of those imprisoned six years ago said Obama "has become a global symbol, especially for us who, under difficult conditions, are defending Cubans' right to democracy."

In another letter, 21 of their wives, mothers and other female relatives also cheered Obama.

Fifty-four dissidents remain imprisoned on allegations they conspired with the U.S. to topple Cuba's government. Those freed were granted medical parole or forced into exile in Spain. One was released after completing a six-year sentence.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[WhoWee]

I wish to congratulate the Nobel committee for their inspired and insightful decision to award President Obama this prestigious award. Never before have we seen a political leader who can inspire the people of all nations as Obama has. But more than that, Obama changed the wayward course of the most powerful nation on earth virtually overnight. His first act was to reach out to all people of the world. He made it clear that we offer and open hand rather than a clenched fist. He changed the tone of the global conversation in order to create an atmosphere in which peace is possible.

Obama has ended the use of torture and closed the CIA’s secret prisons. He is also working hard to close Guantanamo. Through these acts he demonstrates that America is not hopelessly lost; that once again we will strive to meet the standards of decency that we expect not only of ourselves, but of all nations. He spoke honestly and earnestly to the people of the Middle East and admitted that we have made mistakes. He dropped the self-righteous pretense that the US in infallible. He showed the world that we are willing to change. He also made it clear that all nations bear the burden of history; that we must all admit to our faults and move on.

The significance of these acts alone cannot be overstated. Under Bush we showed the world that we are a nation of fear and reactionaries. We showed that we are to be feared, not trusted. We showed that even invading a country on false pretense carries no liability. We showed that we are reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous.

The Nobel committee clearly recognizes that in order for peace to be possible on any number of fronts, the US must be engaged as a trusted member of the global community. They also recognize that as a once-in-a-lifetime leader, Obama’s efforts will be well-served though this special recognition. While Obama hasn’t yet parted the Red Sea or walked on water, no reasonable person expected that he could change the world overnight. However, through his dedication and brilliance, during his two terms of office he will almost certainly change the world in ways that are profound and lasting.

A number of people have been mentioned who may be worthy of this award. But along with deeds and desires of individuals is the global significance of their efforts. Perhaps someone working to bring peace to some little corner of the world is deserving of a Nobel Prize, but the significance of their efforts is limited in the global sense. Clearly this matters or an award would be given every year. Obama has the potential to affect all people of all nations. He has the ability to change the world and he is working hard to do so. For this reason he cannot be compared to all who work for change and peace. He is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. For this reason, Obama matters more than the others mentioned.

So in recognition for what Obama has done and for what he is working to do, I applaud this award whole heartedly. I also applaud the Nobel committee for recognizing greatness. But I think the Nobel committee did miss the target. I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.

Ivan, please support the major components of your glowing speech.

[Supercritical]

I don't think you'll get a good response, WhoWee.

I've been following this forum for some time, and I can't recall seeing anyone be persuaded through logic to change his/her point of view. I think that many of us (myself included) take great pride in our positions. When we walk ourselves through our arguments in the final phases before we hit the "submit reply" button, the only person we're up against is ourselves. And a lot of us have an inflated sense of self-worth, to the extent that if we can beat that guy in the mirror and convince him of our point of view, we will have defeated the defending-champion and taken his crown.

And once that's done, who can stand against you?

[tim85ruhruniv]

Someone please nominate me for the Physics Nobel Next year... I have lots of vision, I 'hope' to unify all the theories consistently. I am highly motivated tooo , all i think about is physics everyday... if possible my friend (he works in McDonalds) tooo, he is a visionary, highly motivated by me to start studying physics lol... he is a hope to all his collegues ´...

nevertheless am planning to nominate my Cat trixie for the peace prize... shez totally against violence, even against nuclear weapons, shez against war tooo lol...

[arildno]

nevertheless am planning to nominate my Cat trixie for the peace prize... shez totally against violence, even against nuclear weapons, shez against war tooo lol...

What if the mice complain?

[B. Elliott]

:biggrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrP1iGM6-QQ

[OmCheeto]

Our Sci-Am brethren (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-nobel-peace) have spoken:

The committee chose Obama to send a clear signal to the world that it want to advocate for international diplomacy, strengthen international institutions and work for a world without nuclear arms, Norwegian Nobel Committee President Thorbjørn Jagland said at the press conference to announce the Peace Prize winner. Jagland, who is also secretary general of the Council of Europe, added that the committee hopes the award will "enhance a little bit" Obama's peace efforts.

[arildno]

The credibility of Mr. Thorbjørn Jagland (chairman of the Nobel committee) is crumbling fast:

1. In the days after the announcement, Jagland has rushed about in Norwegian newspapers telling how unanimous the Committee's support behind the prize was.
Not so. In today's papers, 3 of the 5 members refute that allegation, and says that they had very strong reservations about giving the prize to Mr. Obama, but that they (pathetically) gave in to Mr. Jagland's demands.

It is very rare that Nobel Committee members express themselves in public about the internal discussions that led up to the voting; only on two occasions that I know of has this happened before: In 1973, the conservative members refused to recognize the prize given to Henry Kissinger, and in 1993, Mr. Kåre Kristiansen refused to give his assent to awarding Yasser Arafat the Nobel peace prize.

Mr. Jagland has been shown to exhibit truthiness, rather than truthfulness by this admission from other members of the Committee.

2. In "AdelaideNow" of the 12/10, previous Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer (in officio: 1996-2007) comments on the prize in general, and upon his own experiences with Jagland in particular.
Those comments are not very flattering, and he ends his excellent piece with " You cannot help a fool.":
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26196226-5006301,00.html

[mheslep]

...
Nice title by the way Arildno. :wink:
Agreed.

...Those comments are not very flattering, and he ends his excellent piece with " You cannot help a fool.":
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26196226-5006301,00.htmlThus the Peace Prize has now become the product of a fool. As in his 2AM phone call to the Australian minister, I expect Jagland in reality feels the remarks supplied with the Prize are not merely encouragements, but demands and orders to the US President.

[arildno]

Agreed.

Thus the Peace Prize has now become the product of a fool. As in his 2AM phone call to the Australian minister, I expect Jagland in reality feels the remarks supplied with the Prize are not merely encouragements, but demands and orders to the US President.

Even as early as the 70's, a perceptive previous Prime Minister from the Labour Party, Trygve Bratteli, recognized Jagland (then leader of the Labour Youth movement) for what he is:
"A very dangerous person".

Bratteli perceived Jagland to be a well-meaning idiot with inflated ego, who would readily use his good intentions to pave the road to hell.

[Gokul43201]

Looks like emotionally charged reaction trumps calmly collected thought again.

It may be hard to defend the assertion that Obama "deserved" the Prize any more than Dr Mukwege of the Congo, Mortenson, Cordoba, Tsvangirai, Jingsheng or perhaps even Liu Xiaobo, but it seems even harder to defend the claim that he deserved it no more than any T, D & H, or Fred the dog, or a bowl of mashed potatoes. This thread seems to be crammed with almost deliberately unthoughtful posts.

Take this one, for example:
Well, tell that to the Copts in Egypt.

Obama had a golden chance in Cairo this year to condemn the then-ongoing harassment of the Copts, where the livelihoods of many were stripped away by the Government's insane decision to kill off all the pigs in the country.You've repeated this accusation - of Obama failing to condemn the treatment of the Coptic community - a few times now. Perhaps you should listen to the speech first?

Here, scroll the slider forward to 41 minutes in and listen for about half a minute:

6BlqLwCKkeY

And from the same post...You might also ask why the US Government has recently pressured the Armenians to make a treaty with Turkey without Turkey being pressured to recognize the massacres of Armenians under the late Ottoman Empire.This is another point you repeat here - of Obama shoving normalization down the Armenian throats. I guess Obama was pressuring the Armenians (and shoving the idea down their throats) to normalize relations with Turkey back in Sept 2008, when Armenian President Sarkisian invited Abdullah Gul to visit Armenia and the two engaged in direct diplomatic talks - talks that never, reportedly, discussed the genocide issue? Besides, Turkey was almost certainly arm-twisted into shelving the issue of Armenian troops in Nagorno-Karabakh and ignoring the Azeri threats to stop exporting oil to Turkey.

Turkey President in Armenia Trip, Sep 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7596768.stm)
Armenia Thanks US for Help in Normalizing Turkey Relations, Oct 2009 (http://www.rferl.org/content/Armenia_Thanks_US_For_Help_In_Normalizing_Turkey_R elations/1857541.html)
Azerbaijan Threatens Turkey Over Armenia Agreement, Oct 2009 (http://www.rferl.org/content/Azerbaijan_Threatens_Turkey_Over_Armenia_Agreement/1857198.html)

Sad!

[russ_watters]

Looks like emotionally charged reaction trumps calmly collected thought again.

It may be hard to defend the assertion that Obama "deserved" the Prize any more than Dr Mukwege of the Congo, Mortenson, Cordoba, Tsvangirai, Jingsheng or perhaps even Liu Xiaobo, but it seems even harder to defend the claim that he deserved it no more than any T, D & H, or Fred the dog, or a bowl of mashed potatoes. This thread seems to be crammed with almost deliberately unthoughtful posts....

Sad!
It's called hyperbole and humor to emphasize of the absurdity of the prize. If The Daily Show can be the most trusted news source in America, clearly Americans respond to such literary devices.

[Gokul43201]

It's called hyperbole and humor to emphasize of the absurdity of the prize. If The Daily Show can be the most trusted news source in America, clearly Americans respond to such literary devices.I guess... but for me, the exact same joke repeated over and over again in the same thread starts to get lame pretty soon.

[russ_watters]

I guess... but for me, the exact same joke repeated over and over again in the same thread starts to get lame pretty soon.
If you say so, but I'm still going to make BJ jokes about Clinton and others will still wag their fingers in the air, shake their cheeks like Donald Duck and proclaim "I am not a crook"!

[Ivan Seeking]

It's called hyperbole and humor to emphasize of the absurdity of the prize. If The Daily Show can be the most trusted news source in America, clearly Americans respond to such literary devices.

What a bunch of nonsense.

The lost forum.

[seycyrus]

What a bunch of nonsense.

The lost forum.

It *is* a bunch of nonsense. The Obama cheerleaders who yell and scream no matter how absurd the cause.

[Gokul43201]

It *is* a bunch of nonsense. The Obama cheerleaders who yell and scream no matter how absurd the cause.Care to point out all this yelling and screaming from the side you claim is doing it? Or else, you could just retract that statement.

As for the so called absurdity and sheer nonsense of the decision, how about every one of those that have been dumbfounded by said absurdity produce a list of maybe 50 more deserving people off the top of their heads? Not an unreasonable request, is it, given how absurd this supposedly is?

[mheslep]

Care to point out all this yelling and screaming from the side you claim is doing it? Or else, you could just retract that statement.

As for the so called absurdity and sheer nonsense of the decision, how about every one of those that have been dumbfounded by said absurdity produce a list of maybe 50 more deserving people off the top of their heads? ...
Top of my head:

FDNY and NYPD
Burmese Monks
Ayatollah Sistani
Colin Powell
Rev John Dear
ISF troops in Afghanistan
Bibi Netanyahu
Tienanmen Square survivors, all
Irainian opposition, all those that marched in the street.
All those that Obama himself made oblique reference to in his Oct 9 speech.
Petraeus and Crocker



From the WS (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp): Sima Sama, Ingrid Betancourt, Dr Denis Mukwege, Handicap and Intl Cluster Munition Coalition, Hu Jia, Wei Jingsheng

[Hans de Vries]

All the warmongers, proponents of war and apologists of war making childish ridicule
about the decline of the Nobel Peace price.....

I'm "impressed" by how "seriously" concerned they are.....

[Gokul43201]

Top of my head:

FDNY and NYPD
Burmese Monks
Ayatollah Sistani
Colin Powell
Rev John Dear
ISF troops in Afghanistan
Bibi Netanyahu
Tienanmen Square survivors, all
Irainian opposition, all those that marched in the street.
All those that Obama himself made oblique reference to in his Oct 9 speech.
Petraeus and Crocker



From the WS (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp): Sima Sama, Ingrid Betancourt, Dr Denis Mukwege, Handicap and Intl Cluster Munition Coalition, Hu Jia, Wei JingshengI appreciate the response, but fail to see how many in the top-of-head list satisfy the (specifically underlined) requirements that they, "during the preceding year ... 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."

Now that (failure) may just be my ignorance at work, so if you say that they do satisfy these requirements, I'll take your word for it.

[Moonbear]

I appreciate the response, but fail to see how many in the top-of-head list satisfy the (specifically underlined) requirements that they, "during the preceding year ... 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."

Now that (failure) may just be my ignorance at work, so if you say that they do satisfy these requirements, I'll take your word for it.

Why would you limit it to "during the preceding year?" That's not stipulated in the Nobel Prize requirements. If there was nobody eligible, they didn't have to pick someone randomly. They are allowed to skip a year.

[Evo]

Why would you limit it to "during the preceding year?" That's not stipulated in the Nobel Prize requirements. If there was nobody eligible, they didn't have to pick someone randomly. They are allowed to skip a year.
They have skipped the award for many years, as was previously posted.

[Gokul43201]

Why would you limit it to "during the preceding year?" That's not stipulated in the Nobel Prize requirements. If there was nobody eligible, they didn't have to pick someone randomly. They are allowed to skip a year.I was quoting from Nobel's will, which is cited in Statute #1 of the Nobel Foundation, as the basis of the prizes (underlines added by me). And the "preceding year" requirement is indeed stipulated in it, though it seems that this particular requirement has been swept under the rug a number of times by different committees.§ 1.
The Nobel Foundation is established under the terms of the will of the engineer Dr. Alfred Bernhard Nobel, drawn up on November 27, 1895, which in its relevant parts states:

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part 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. The prize for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not."

http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par10

[arildno]

Sure, Gokul.

And that archaism has never been observed, neither in the scientific prizes or elsewhere.

Furthermore, Morgan Tswangerai did more than Obama last year as well.

[Hessami]

When I first read about this weeks ago, and how one of the local politicians in Australia said that it should have been given to someone more deserving, like Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe for his recent peace efforts, the first thing that popped into my head was the image of said politician superimposed onto Kanye West's body...

"Imma let you finish, but MORGAN TSVANGIRAI is one of the best spreaders of peace of ALL TIME!!!"

This made me lol.

[mheslep]

I appreciate the response, but fail to see how many in the top-of-head list satisfy the (specifically underlined) requirements that they, "during the preceding year ... 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."

Now that (failure) may just be my ignorance at work, so if you say that they do satisfy these requirements, I'll take your word for it.I didn't review any of the specifics, not that I discount the original ones as you've listed after; they're admirable though not followed. I listed simply 'off the top of my head' using the accomplishments of past winners that I highly respect (Martin Luther King, etc) as a basis, my own general concept of what the prize should be, and a general knowledge of the actions of those in my list. This, in response to the more deserving challenge (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2405628&postcount=222). I hope the President is able to make some notable action to earn such a prize. Jagland et al, and Obama's acceptance, have robbed him of that chance now.

[seycyrus]

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."[/i]


Emphasis mine.

How much was *done* ?

Cheerlead away!

[Count Iblis]

Emphasis mine.

How much was *done* ?

Cheerlead away!

1) Obama made it clear to Israel before he was in power that the Gaza offensive had to be concluded by the time he was president.

2) The US has decided to negotiate seriously with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. The US will not boss Iran around with threats to make it do exactly what it wants. So, in principle, the US can allow Iran to have an industrial scale enrichment capability, provided it is verifiably not for military purposes.

3) The US successfully negotiated a peace deal between Turkey and Armenia.

4) The US made diplomatic progress in dealing with North Korea.

5) The US implemented a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq.

6) The US agreed to change the rules for dealing with terror suspects, bringing them in line with International Law.

7) The US has asked Israel to stop building settlements in occupied territories. This is an important step in the Mid East peace process.

8) Relations between the US and Russia have been reset. The US has agreed to stop building the missile defense shields, dodging criticism from the Right that a pawn against Russia has been voluntarily given up.

9) Obama has pledged to implement tough policies to fight climate change. Climate change is a political issue for which Al Gore and the IPCC have previously been awarded the Nobel Prize for.

10) The US has changed course on nuclear disarmement. The US is now willing to drastically cut its nuclear arsenal.

[mheslep]

Could you please source just one or two of these?
...

9) Obama has pledged to implement tough policies to fight climate change. Climate change is a political issue for which Al Gore and the IPCC have previously been awarded the Nobel Prize for.

10) The US has changed course on nuclear disarmement. The US is now willing to drastically cut its nuclear arsenal.
Nor will your not find 'willing', 'pledged' or other such conditionals in Nobel's will.

[seycyrus]

Items 1-10

As has been mentioned previously, they only got his name in like two weeks before the deadline.

Eh, cmon despite what the cheerleaders say, it's obvious he got it because he is "not bush".

Would he have won if he had not been elected? His accomplishments that would have been in consideration would have been the same. (none)

[mheslep]

...5) The US implemented a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq.
The status of forces agreement was agreed to on November 16, 2008 under Bush, specifying the 2011 withdrawal.
IRAQ: Cabinet approves plan for total U.S. troop withdrawal in 2011 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/11/iraq-a-new-sofa.html)

[mheslep]

...

6) The US agreed to change the rules for dealing with terror suspects, bringing them in line with International Law.

NYT, August 24, 2009
U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html)

[mheslep]

3) The US successfully negotiated a peace deal between Turkey and Armenia.
Yes, with Swiss in the lead, and the help of French, Russian and U.S. officials over the past two years.. Secretary Clinton took some notable last minute action to hold the deal together on Oct 10 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/10/AR2009101002300.html), the day after the 2009 peace prize was awarded.

[Gokul43201]

Emphasis mine.

How much was *done* ?

Cheerlead away!You know, if you have nothing of substance to add, there's a much easier way to do it.


A top-of-my-head list of efforts towards:

1. Fraternity between nations:

Egypt speech; interview with Al-arabiya; reopening talks with Syria; restarting negotiations with Iran (and possibly gaining the biggest enrichment related concession from them yet); denouncing expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territories yet pressing forward towards a roadmap via Clinton, Mitchell, Gates, Jim Jones (NSA) et al; aiding in the final phase of the normalization process between Turkey & Armenia; improving relations with Russia and China, lifting restrictions on Americans visiting relatives in Cuba...

2. Abolition or reduction of standing armies:

I don't see very much here in terms of reducing the size of the operating US military, but that may partly be from my ignorance. One thing that comes to mind is his rejection of expanding the F-22 inventory. And indirectly, the work towards easing up the Turkey-Armenia conflict may be the best chance yet for a troop reduction in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, the rethinking of the European missile defense program is no doubt a huge de-escalating factor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902419.html) for military force in the Eastern Europe-Russia-Ukraine-Belarus region, and has also led to improved relations between NATO and Russia. Also, in terms of not taking actions that would cause a troop escalation, you can put down the smart decision of not jumping on the "Georgia good, Russia bad" bandwagon during the conflict in Georgia/S. Ossetia, in which we now know Georgia (the state, not its people) was no innocent victim (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113354827).

3. Holding and promotion of peace congresses:

Calling for and chairing the UNSC meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, leading to resolution 1887 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9746.doc.htm).

Not aware of any other "peace conferences" other than the Summit of the Americas meeting that happened earlier - and I don't recall anything noteworthy about it, but that too may just be a result of my ignorance of the proceedings.

---

And how many pages must a thread run down before we see any sign of substantiation for the assertion that the selection of Obama was so dumbfoundingly ill-deserved that anyone who calls it merely "hard to defend" ought to be labeled a "cheerleader"? Where are all the resumes that outstrip the above list by such an overwhelming margin that the expressions of disbelief prevalent in this thread be justified? It's the least one can do.

PS: I've only thrown in links for what I think may be the less well-known claims. I think others are either well-known or easy to look up, but I will provide links for any specific statements upon request (or retract them if I can't).

[seycyrus]

You know, if you have nothing of substance to add, there's a much easier way to do it.


I add more to this thread in two sentences than you do in 14 paragraphs of your RAH RAH RAH.

He had been in office for only a couple of weeks at best, before the nominations were closed.

You refuse to recognize this simple fact.

Rah Rah Rah!

[turbo-1]

And how many pages must a thread run down before we see any sign of substantiation for the assertion that the selection of Obama was so dumbfoundingly ill-deserved that anyone who calls it merely "hard to defend" ought to be labeled a "cheerleader"?
Much of the anti-Obama material seems to me to be on no more lofty a level than Kanye West's rants about Taylor Swift's VMA award.

I could go on and on about her achievements at age 18-19, but Wiki has a pretty good run-down.

According to Nielsen SoundScan, Swift was the biggest selling artist of 2008 in the United States with combined sales of more than four million albums. Swift's Fearless and her self-titled album finished 2008 at number three and number six respectively, with sales of 2.1 and 1.5 million.[6] She was the first artist in the history of Nielsen SoundScan to have two different albums in the Top 10 on the year end album chart.[6] Fearless has topped the Billboard 200 in 11 non-consecutive weeks.[7] No album has spent more time at number one since 1999-2000. It also was the first album by a female artist in country music history to log eight weeks at #1 on The Billboard 200. In mid-January 2009, Swift became the first country artist to top the 2 million mark in paid downloads with three different songs.[8] As of the week ending February 8, 2009, Swift's single "Love Story" became the country song with most paid downloads in history and the first country song to top the Mainstream Top 40 chart.[9][10] Swift then subsequently went onto replicate the feat, reaching #1 again on the Mainstream Top 40 in September 2009 with "You Belong With Me", making it just the second country song in the chart's history to reach the top. [11] According to the 2009 issue of Forbes, Swift is ranked as the 69th most powerful celebrity with over $18 million in earnings this year.[12]

Now, she hasn't earned any "life-time achievement" awards, but she has been incredibly popular and influential in her field, and at a very young age. Most musicians would be proud and happy for her, but not Kanye. He hadn't the insight, the maturity, nor the class to graciously acknowledge her accomplishments and the fact that she just "might" have earned that award.

[seycyrus]

Much of the anti-Obama material seems to me to be on no more lofty a level than Kanye West's rants about Taylor Swift's VMA award.


If this isn't the one of the greatest derailments of a thread in the history of PF...

Yeah, so now if you think that Obama winning the peace prize when he had only been in office for a couple of weeks is fishy, you're just like Kanye!

Someone tag this post to the thread about the decline of PF.

[Gokul43201]

Sure, Gokul.

And that archaism has never been observed, neither in the scientific prizes or elsewhere.If you read a little carefully, you will note that the "archaism" isn't the only phrase that I underlined.

Furthermore, Morgan Tswangerai did more than Obama last year as well.And even if you didn't read too carefully, you'd have noticed that I mentioned Tsvangirai in a more-than-one-person-long list in my earlier post, of deserving candidates. And if you wanted to make a coherent argument, couldn't you, at the very least, take the trouble of enumerating what it is that Tsvangirai did more of, last year, than Obama?

[seycyrus]

..enumerating what it is that Tsvangirai did more of, last year, than Obama?

Since you are talking about *last year*... What did Obama do last year besides run a winning campaign?

[Gokul43201]

Yeah, so now if you think that Obama winning the peace prize when he had only been in office for a couple of weeks is fishy, you're just like Kanye!If this isn't one of the greatest misrepresentations of the word "week"...

And I obviously meant, "during the past year". But at least you have now graduated from making no contribution at all, to nitpicking language errors. Congrats!

[Hurkyl]

In this case, Obama did not seek the award - it was bestowed upon him by an independent committee, but still it is used as en excuse to attack him.
I guess I haven't been following the thread closely, but I thought we* were using the award to attack the Nobel Prize Committee? (And to a lesser extent, the politicians who have decided to play along with it)

*: And that includes you, at least originally.

[seycyrus]

If this isn't one of the greatest misrepresentations of the word "week"...

And I obviously meant, "during the past year". But at least you have now graduated from making no contribution at all, to nitpicking language errors. Congrats!

Excuse me sir, you have made an error!

The post that you respond to was my response to turbo-1, you you.

I will graciously ignore this error, but must ask. What did Obama do during the past year, prior to when the nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize were closed?

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.