I'm going to leave you to guess who that might be.
So do you think he deserves to win?
So do you think he deserves to win?
Some nutty Norwegian politician submitted wikileaks. What a crock. But they say the prize has been a joke the last few years. Obama got it last year for no reason.It's Wikileaks, or as you may be alluding to, Julian Assange...
What, for putting up a website? There are people nominated that have risked their lives to make changes. Let's hope the prize this year isn't another joke and a slap in the face of the people that actually did something.I think Julian Assange deserves it more then anyone else I can think of, surely more then Obama.
It's funny though how it will turn out. WikiLeaks is nominiated for a Nobel peace prize for essentially undermining the previous winner of the same prize.
You do know that Obama won last year?Haha! I was just about to say the same thing! I think the person whom will win the Nobel Peace Prize is someone who has persevered to express a cause and change and has been relentless against the injustices of others. In that respect both Obama and Julian Assange encompass these qualities and both deserve to be nominated.
You do know that Obama won last year?
I miss-spelled his name. It should read : Liu Xiaobo
I would be interested to find out how last year's peace prize was received in China
Could you please explain in more detail why you think that description applies to either of them?Kevin_Axion said:I think the person whom will win the Nobel Peace Prize is someone who has persevered to express a cause and change and has been relentless against the injustices of others. In that respect both Obama and Julian Assange encompass these qualities and both deserve to be nominated.
In Egypt at the moment there are probably tens of thousands of common people all more deserving of a Peace Nobel than Assange, and risking considerably more.
It would be interesting to hear the rationale for awarding a prize to someone who had undermining diplomacy as a major goal. You'd think the Peace Prize Committee would prefer diplomacy to other interactions between nations.
I was actually wondering about that, but I thought I would not post it here because some may feel this is too much attributing to him. I am sure Vanadium knows that history is made by tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals, while history books remember only a few leaders. The reason I was thinking about this is rather in terms of Obama's prize as an incentive to pursue the 180 degrees shift in US foreign policy in the middle east (one of the possible interpretations of the prize), which the current administration has certainly not always sustained, but at least did recently in the direct address to Mubarak.In the context of Egypt, I have to wonder how many people were motivated by [...] the speech by Obama [...] to take to the streets?
Could you please explain in more detail why you think that description applies to either of them?
One can argue that Obama's endeavour to become president encompassed the qualities that deserves a Nobel Peace Prize Nomination. His ability to persevere against racial boundaries and unite people of all cultures in races not just nationally but globally was appalling. His speeches were powerful and he was able to achieve something that many people have waited their lives to see, and also where many have failed. Many can say he did nothing but Obama changed the course of history, he made the U.S a different place and had built hope in a society that had become torn apart over the 8 previous years. He provided a new threshold to surpass for his successors and made the U.S a more profitable, united and patriotic democracy. Yes, one can generalize his accomplishments to just becoming president but if you look deeper there was a lot more involved.
Haha! You're right, others may feel differently but maybe that's just U.S politics or democracy in general.
What, in your opinion, is he motivated by?