Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the awarding of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, exploring concerns about the implications for the credibility of the Nobel Prize, the criteria for awarding such honors, and the potential political motivations behind the decision. Participants express a range of opinions regarding the appropriateness of the award based on Obama's actions and intentions, with a focus on the nature of peace efforts and the timing of the recognition.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that awarding the prize to Obama is premature, arguing that it should be based on concrete accomplishments rather than intentions or ambitions.
  • Others suggest that the Nobel Committee's decision may have been politically motivated, potentially undermining the prize's credibility.
  • A few participants compare Obama's award to past controversial recipients, questioning the criteria used for selection.
  • There are discussions about whether Obama should decline the prize, referencing historical instances of declined awards and the implications of such a decision.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the uniqueness of Obama's vision for peace, suggesting that many leaders share similar aspirations without receiving awards.
  • Concerns are raised about the public reception of the award in Norway, with references to polls indicating mixed opinions among the populace.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the decision to award Obama the prize is contentious and raises questions about its implications. However, there is no consensus on whether the award is justified or on the motivations behind it, with multiple competing views remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the lack of clarity regarding the criteria for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, noting that the decision appears to be based on future potential rather than past achievements. There are also references to the historical context of previous awardees, suggesting a pattern of controversial selections.

  • #121
arildno said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Count Iblis said:
Hans de Vries said:
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 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563503,00.html":

RUSH LIMBAUGH said:
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 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:

An aide to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:
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?

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, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563503,00.html"

Doug Brinkley said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
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.
 
  • #124
OmCheeto said:
And 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 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?

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, 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?:smile:), 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #125
arildno said:
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
 
  • #126
arildno said:
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".
 
  • #127
And why should the Peace Prize be misused to give overambitious Norwegian politicians the feeling of affecting current world policy??
 
  • #128


WhoWee said:
How does making this about Rush Limbaugh (comparing Rush to the Taliban?:smile:),
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**...
 
  • #129


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.
 
  • #130


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.
 
  • #132
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #133
OmCheeto said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #134


Pattonias said:
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 http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzJjMDM0ODEwZjZkOWZkN2ExNmYyYzIyMGQxYTQ2NmQ=" :

Lech Walesa said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #135


russ_watters said:
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 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #137


russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #138
russ_watters said:
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
 
  • #139
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"?
 
  • #140
The views of most European rightwingers are more similar to US Democrats than Republicans.
 
  • #141
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #142
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.
 
  • #143
arildno said:
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 !
 
  • #144
Count Iblis said:
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
 
  • #145
humanino said:
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..
 
  • #146
arildno said:
So Hans de Vries is a professional politician?
I do not believe Hans is a professional politician.
arildno said:
you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR
Why?
I now that Sarkozy, Merkel and Rasmussen are professional politicians and classify themselves (centre-)right.
 
  • #147
humanino said:
I do not believe Hans is a professional politician.
No thanks :smile:, just an active observer...
humanino said:
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
 
  • #148
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:
 
  • #149


OmCheeto said:
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.
 
  • #150
arildno said:
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 definitely right-wing parties (and the latter are quite far right by European standards).
 

Similar threads

News Three feminists share Nobel Peace Prize
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News CIA rigged at least one Nobel Prize
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K