i understand that they want to support his intentions, but i think that their decision would hold more merit if they had waited til he at least had done something with his presidency, which he really hasn't. it hasn't even been a year. waiting a year or so would be more legitimate imo

Djin)ftw(

Germany3357 Posts

October 09 2009 12:59 GMT

#45

On October 09 2009 19:22 LosingID8 wrote:

What do you think of their decision to award Obama with the Peace Prize?

In my opinion it was way too premature. He hasn't really accomplished anything to warrant winning such a prestigious award. Perhaps he will be worthy of winning one in the future but it is premature to award it to him now. I'd like to highlight this quote from the article:

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

Exactly what I thought and giving him a Nobel Prize for support is like.. well at least I would not give someone an award who is still in power.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize in 2007 also (not he alone but still), don't know if that was justified either..

KOFgokuon

United States14910 Posts

October 09 2009 13:03 GMT

#46

ehhh

JWD

United States12607 Posts

October 09 2009 13:06 GMT

#47

The Peace Prize is pretty much an embarrassment to the Nobel name.

LorDo

Sweden485 Posts

October 09 2009 13:11 GMT

#48

On October 09 2009 19:28 Foucault wrote:
This seems like such a ~~swedish~~, politically correct thing to do. ugh

Norwegian.

Americans...

okum

France5778 Posts

October 09 2009 13:11 GMT

#49

This is either insane or genius; more likely genius.

The motivation seems accurate. The Peace Prize is frequently awarded to persons with prominent roles in ongoing peace efforts, and not only for past accomplishments. Obama's work to improve diplomatic relations is significant in itself, and in absolute terms, has probably done as much for world peace already as the work of many Peace Prize-worthy activists in less influential positions.

It's hard to overstate Bush's negative impact on the world. Even if you consider this an anti-prize for Bush, just restoring the status quo is an accomplishment; it didn't happen automatically. Obama also can't be blamed for the two wars he inherited from Bush. They don't exactly help his cause, but they're not much to hold against him either.

Shizuru~

Malaysia1676 Posts

October 09 2009 13:17 GMT

#50

Why not?

This ~~piss~~ peace prize is nothing more of a publicity hype lately, if peeps like Al Gore, Arafat, Henry Kissinger even could get them... well why not?

50bani

Romania480 Posts

October 09 2009 13:34 GMT

#51

Agree with the fact that Obama has done nothing yet. Nobody(US included) has yet disassembled nuclear weapons so this is very premature.

The peace prize has lost it's value already, with Arafat, Kissinger and others. But one can think that it now has a different purpose, it represents support for a cause, it is no longer an achievement based award.

Chef

10810 Posts

October 09 2009 13:34 GMT

#52

I like Obama fine, but this diminishes the meaning of getting a nobel peace prize. All he's done so far is become the first black president of the United States.

Then again, it's the Peace prize, which is ambiguous at best most of the time anyway. It's just I think of the word nobel and I think of great inventors. Annual awards are generally stupid.

Liquid`Drone

Norway28783 Posts

October 09 2009 13:41 GMT

#53

al gore was a perfect winner. if you don't understand the connection between climate and peace, ask and I will answer.

Foucault

Sweden2826 Posts

October 09 2009 13:49 GMT

#54

Oh god silly norwegians. Kidding

Actually Norway and Sweden are pretty much the same so I could easily see Sweden take the same decision.

lgd-haze

Sweden547 Posts

October 09 2009 13:53 GMT

#55

On October 09 2009 22:49 Foucault wrote:
Oh god silly norwegians. Kidding

Actually Norway and Sweden are pretty much the same so I could easily see Sweden take the same decision.

>_>

Where is this ~~world~~ peace prize going?

Nylan

United States795 Posts

October 09 2009 13:55 GMT

#56

I'm actively working to end world hunger

...Peace Price 2010: in the baaaaaaag

Foucault

Sweden2826 Posts

October 09 2009 13:57 GMT

#57

On October 09 2009 22:53 lgd-Haze wrote:

Show nested quote +

>_>

Where is this ~~world~~ peace prize going?

huh?

NonY

8751 Posts

October 09 2009 14:03 GMT

#58

Work is recognized in two ways: popular opinion and expert opinion. Popular opinion usually precedes expert opinion. A contrary expert opinion can be a tool for changing popular opinion. The Nobel Prize is usually awarded long after popular opinion and most expert opinions have been expressed so that it's easy to align with those opinions, but it's capable of having its own. Rather than wait 10 years to see how Obama's career pans out to make an easy choice, they're seizing a more useful role by opining on an active thing. While it goes against their normal method, it doesn't undermine the integrity of the award or their reasons for awarding it.

As far as I know, TL.net has no political experts. At best, we have people that have majored in political science and digest a lot of political media. Nobody is in a position to say that (1) "created a new climate in international politics" (2) "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play" (3) "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" are overstated. If his role in those things are not overstated, then they're perfectly excellent reasons to receive an award.

hifriend

China7935 Posts

October 09 2009 14:04 GMT

#59

what has he even done? its all promises and this is fail

if swedish and norwegian politicians constantly have to brown-nose larger and more significant nations I really wish they'd pick a state that has at least ratified the kyoto protocol